A Townhall Presentation delivered October 20, 2007
At this point in history, it is no longer unthinkable that the Supreme Court could potentially overturn Roe v. Wade. As necessary and marvelous as this turning point will be, in and of itself it will neither establish nor preserve a culture of life. Legislative and judicial victories will be fleeting unless we open hearts and minds to the dignity of life and form and culture of life that shapes our perception and response to life in the world.
Moreover, if we are to have any hope of building a permanent culture of life, then we must communicate with and persuade the members of the Abortion Rights Movement, particularly the movers and shakers, the leaders, those who have power to shape our culture and our thinking. There are many people and groups who shape our culture, they are among them, and they are formidable and intelligent. If we are to establish a culture of life, they cannot be removed from the equation, nor can they remain as they are. They must be engaged and persuaded and come to a personal conversion. We must hospitably and lovingly engage them with hope and faith in the power of truth and grace. Unfortunately, there are obstacles and hindrances to this goal, one of which is the way we use language in this debate, and by "we" I mean everyone on all sides of the abortion issue.
This evening I will be addressing why it is imperative to talk to the Abortion Rights Movement, how our use of language shapes and hinders the abortion debate, and how we can improve the accuracy of our language so as to open hearts and minds to the beauty, truth, and goodness of life and from that to build a permanent culture of life. What I will advocate is not a prescription for certain victory; it is not "The Plan" that if we only follow we'll end abortion once and for all. Nevertheless, what I propose this evening is a prerequisite for any lasting-success.
Why is it necessary to engage in hospitable discourse the leaders and influential members of the Abortion Rights Movement? Simply put, protecting the right to life of the unborn requires right thinking on the part of all those who shape the culture. The legislative and judicial battles pertaining to abortion will continue to be fought until abortion is no longer seen as a right and the unborn person's right to life is acknowledged--by effectively everyone.
As important and necessary as sound legislation and judicial practice are in the process of ending abortion, the tools of this fight are not limited to them. Abortions don't occur merely because they are legal; they occur for reasons that are personal, philosophical, cultural, economic, and social. Abortion also occurs with such perpetuity because "the procedure" is socially permissible. Consider that according to Gallup's annual Values and Belief survey, conducted May 10-13, 2007, 49% of Americans consider themselves pro-choice, and 45% consider themselves pro-life. According to the same survey, 26% of respondents said abortion should be legal under any circumstance, 15% said legal under most, and 40% said legal under a few circumstances. So really, despite what people consider themselves, 81% of Americans are pro-choice given certain circumstances. Some of those acknowledge the humanity of the unborn but see abortion as licit in some circumstances; others deny the humanity and personhood of the unborn and so have little qualms about abortion. So while we may be close to overturning Roe v. Wade, we are very far from having a cultural mentality that respects the life of the unborn. The abortion rights advocates seem to be winning the hearts and minds of most Americans.
Opening hearts and minds to the truth about abortion necessitates opening hearts and minds to the complexities of the abortion debate. Aside from the metaphysical debate over the nature and personhood of the unborn child, and the ethical debate over whether evil can ever be justified, our cultural mentalities and economic philosophies contribute to the complexity: consider our consumerism, our worship of convenience and efficiency, our moral individualism, our cultural pluralism, our distrust of those with big families, our understanding of sexuality, and our devotion to profit over people. These mentalities contribute to what John D. Caputo calls the bloodiest form of birth control the world has ever seen.
Any debate with the opposition will need to take place in light of the complex and manifold causes of abortion. Currently though, I find that we tend to think of the abortion debate in a way that edges toward legalism. Take, for example, the way we ascertain whether or not a public official is pro-life. The standard is almost always a measure of what he has done or would do through legislation or judicial appointments. Would he outlaw abortion or make abortions legally more difficult to obtain? What a public figure does through legislation or judicial appointments strongly indicates where he stands on the abortion issue. It's the most logical and practical standard of assessment, but we can go beyond that in assessing how successful a public servant would be in eliminating abortion. We need to. It is perfectly conceivable to me that a public servant could desire to outlaw abortion, have the legal power to do so, or even succeed in outlawing abortion, and yet in the long term be detrimental to the pro-life cause. How so?
Because public servants and their pundits in the media have power to shape public philosophy, the philosophical views of a public servant are very worth considering. So consider a public servant who objects to abortion, would outlaw it through the land, yet on other issues, would defend and promote a consequentialist ethic. Consequentialism is the ethical philosophy that the morality of an action is determined exclusively in light of the consequences. In short, as long as the results are good, deeds of evil can be done and justified. Now imagine such a public servant comes to power and both outlaws abortion and successfully promotes a consequentialist ethos. In the short term, yes, abortion is made illegal, but if a consequentialist ethos pervades in society, legal protections of the unborn are not long for the world. Abortion is likely to be legalized even in a society where 90% of people see abortion as evil, if the majority of people think certain circumstances justify doing evil. I am here not advocating the position that we can vote for a candidate who promotes abortion; what I am saying is that a public figure can promote abortion by promoting bad philosophy, even if he wants to outlaw the particular practice.
All of this is to say that legal policy will persist only if accompanied by cultural changes, changes in mentality and philosophy. To change the culture, we must change hearts and minds, and that requires that we do what we can to open hearts and minds to what we have to say. However, we won't get far telling people how they must think about abortion. We may advance our message of life if we show them, persuade them; and persuasion requires dialogue. And a real dialogue is an intimate and hospitable meeting of hearts and minds. Debate isn't about winning or defeating the opponent; debate is about two or more sides communicating so as to arrive at the truth. Real debate, real discussion, real persuasion requires a meeting of hearts and minds, and that means that hearts and minds on all sides must be open. We have to open our hearts and minds as well. We have to welcome the other in hospitality, listen to him, consider his thought and concerns, and engage his ideas in charity and respect.
Now it may be said that the pro-choice side is not going to listen to us, so why should we bother listening to them. Well, they may not listen to us. We may not convince them. We may be stuck with a culture that does not respect the life of the unborn. That is the price of not trying to open hearts and minds. In such a culture that has little respect for the life of the unborn, policy battles over abortion will continue till doomsday. To be sure, a mutual opening of hearts and minds isn't magic. It isn't a guarantee of success. It isn't THE PLAN. It is prerequisite hope.
So now then, we come to the question: How do we open hearts and minds, those of ourselves and our opponents in this debate? There are many ways, I am sure, but I will focus on one this evening: We improve the accuracy and hospitality of our language.
Now language is a big subject, and I don't want to bore you with a long, dry lecture on language arts or tiresome philosophical speculations about the nature of language. I must accept that not everyone is as nerdy as I am. (It's a long process; I'm working on it). Still, I think it would be beneficial to highlight a point about language that pertains to the abortion issue. What I'm asking you to do is to think about thinking, which, I assure you, is as tedious as it sounds.
We see what fits into our concepts, and the clearer are our concepts, the clearer will be our perceptions; moreover, the concepts in which we think shape the way we see and understand things. This is especially true if the concepts we think in terms of are figurative, metaphorical. I am sure you have all heard of the expression "the culture war." When we use the expression "culture war," we are using the metaphor of war in our language about cultural issues. We therefore perceive and understand those cultural issues within the context of a war, and we use terms of war when speaking and thinking about cultural issues like abortion. We fight to end abortion. Overturning Roe v. Wade would be a victory for the pro-life cause. Abortion is an evil that must be defeated. These are some examples. The point here is that if we want to use language effectively to open hearts and minds, and I'd say that's a given in a debate so grave as the debate on abortion, we have to be aware of and reflect upon the ways that our perception and understanding of the abortion issue is shaped by the language that we use. I will return to this metaphor momentarily.
I see at least three problems with the use of language in the abortion debate, problems that hinder our communication with the other. 1) The framework of the debate is illogical. 2) Each side uses uncharitable language to present itself as the only side with any legitimate moral concerns. 3) We can get locked into thinking exclusively in terms of one metaphor, which on its own is insufficient.
In many of our cultural debates over moral issues, the oppositional language makes sense: one may be pro-cloning or anti-cloning, pro-homosexual marriage or against homosexual marriage, supporting of a war or opposed to a war. There are nuances in the debates, of course, but generally the language used by the debating parties relates to the same object: war, cloning, marriage, stem-cell research, etc. In the abortion debate, however, the oppositional language does not refer to the same object, and so the language framework of the debate is not a logical opposition. One side identifies itself as pro-life; the oppositional side calls itself pro-choice. So the debate becomes one of life versus choice. Each side presents itself as making moral arguments, but in favor of different values.. Each side fights against different perceived evils: one, killing the innocent; the other, oppression of women's rights. In a sense, we're not speaking the same language in this debate over abortion, and so genuine communication is very difficult. Instead of talking with the other, we're talking past the other.
Another hindrance to genuine communication is that each side often presents itself as the only side with legitimate moral concerns, demonizing the other to that end. On occasion each side in this debate assumes or explicitly states that the other has no good cause from which his stance on abortion arises. I have heard advocates for abortion claim that the anti-abortionists really are not concerned about babies but are using the abortion issue to impose upon women their religious ideas about the morality of reproduction or oppressive patriarchal systems. From pro-life advocates I have heard the abortion rights movement described as assassins, death-peddlers, predators, and abortion enthusiasts who fight for the right to kill babies in death camps. Putting the veracity of such statements aside, they are certainly not conducive to a hospitable and charitable debate. Such language tends to offend, anger, and alienate, as opposed to softening hearts and opening minds.
The third hindrance to communication arises from the limitation of language itself. As I mentioned, the language we use to think about things shapes the way we perceive and understand those things. This is especially evident when we have to rely on metaphorical language in our thinking. Earlier I mentioned the metaphor of the culture war. I think the metaphor of war has its uses in thinking about cultural conflicts. It's difficult to retreat from it. I don't suggest we completely abandon it in our thinking and discourse. The problem is not the use of that metaphor or any revealing metaphor in general. The problem occurs when we limit ourselves to thinking in one particular metaphorical framework. When that happens, we blind ourselves to whatever doesn't fit into that framework. Every metaphor is incomplete. Every metaphor conceals what it is used to reveal. When we get locked into a metaphorical framework, like "culture war," we severely limit our understanding and our ability to communicate. The metaphor of war, for instance, has its uses. It also has its dangers. In a mentality shaped by a metaphor of war, truth can become a weapon that we wield as an instrument of alienation. We think that because we are fighting a war, our objective is to defeat our enemies. Yet, in the culture wars, the objective is not the defeat of our enemies so much as the defeat of their arguments, and not simply for the sake of defeating them and feeling right about our cause, but in hopes that our enemy, so to speak, may become our friend. The metaphor of war is perhaps better applies to the spiritual battles in our hearts and souls. "Put on the whole armor of God," wrote St. Paul to the Ephesians. "For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." The enemy in the culture wars is the demonic, the diabolical, and the battlefield is our hearts, minds, and souls.
Alas, the very idea of opening hearts and minds doesn't quite fit in with the metaphor of war. In a war, you generally don't seek to talk to your enemies, at least not until they're defeated. What I am arguing this evening is that the only way "defeat" our opponents is to talk to them. Indeed, I think we should cease to see them and speak of them as "enemies," for the darkness they defend should concern us as it concerns there own souls and the lives of the unborn. Our objective in the abortion debate is to create a culture of life. A culture of life means that those who shape the culture have, among other things, a life ethic. Given that necessity, our goal must be to persuade those who do not acknowledge or respect the personal life of the unborn to do so. I believe a prerequisite for that is improving the accuracy and hospitality of our language.
So how do we improve the accuracy and hospitality of our language? I suggest at least four ways. 1) We can seek to understand the Abortion Rights advocates as they understand themselves and use language that they would agree accurately defines their position. 2) We can use language that communicates with and doesn't merely talk past the language of the Abortion Rights movement. 3) We can use language that more accurately corresponds to the moral complexity of the debate. And 4) we can use language that is respectful and charitable. I will take each in turn.
First, I think we can safely assume that advocates for abortion rights don't see themselves as assassins, death-peddlers, predators, or abortion enthusiasts who fight for the right to kill babies in death camps, anymore than those who are against abortion see themselves as oppressors of women or enemies of freedom. Of course, that an abortion rights advocate does not see himself as defending the killing of innocent life does not mean that he is not defending such a practice. Our goal in the Respect Life movement should be to help him see that evil reality of what he defends, but openly labeling him with loaded categories he wouldn't apply to himself, even if truthful, is more likely to close him off to our message. We alienate when we could be embracing. By using language to depict those we disagree with accurately but also in accordance with how they understand themselves increases the possibility that they will be open to hearing what we have to say.
This brings me to the second means of changing our language. Without ourselves justifying abortion, we would do well to recognize that those who do often have legitimate moral concerns from which their position on abortion arises. Let's face it: Western Civilization is not immaculate in its defenses of rights, especially women's rights (and today the rights of the unborn). In a broad sense, both the abortion rights people and the respect life people want the same thing: a just, good, and life-affirming society. We disagree on whether certain rights exist, but this is not a debate between one group that thinks people have dignity and another that thinks people have no dignity worth respecting. We both want a moral society, a just society, and so it is possible, based upon that common desire, to formulate--to a degree--a common framework, to speak a shared moral language. Having a shared moral language means that we can, without participating in evil, work together to build a just and moral society. There are bridges that must be crossed, but let us cross them and brothers and sisters, not as enemies.
Having a shared language, even if only in part, will help us to build a common culture. I don't expect nor would I desire that we all think and speak exactly the same way. There is no one universal philosophy to which we should all swear allegiance. We may, however, come to an agreement as a people on certain core principles. Left and Right need not be rancorous foes, even if we disagree.
Third, I have spoken this evening of the abortion debate as being morally complex, and by that I do not mean that there are circumstances that would justify abortion. However, abortions occur for a variety of reasons, some graver than others. A contraceptive mentality, for instance. A fear of not being able to feed existing children. A concern that a child would have a life of suffering and misery. A consumeristic philosophy that sees children as an inconvenience. There is a difference in culpability between a teenager who procures and abortion because she will be tossed from her home if she wants to carry her baby and a woman who receives an abortion because another child would be a minor inconvenience. Also, the reasons why the members of the abortion rights movement defend the legalization of abortion are many and complex. Rarely, I think, are they pro-abortion or pro-death or even against life. They don't push abortion as a wonderful thing, but as a sad necessity. Or they see abortion as evil but not a crime meriting a prison sentence. The abortion rights advocates do not have a respect or reverence or love for abortion in the way that we have a respect and love for the life of the unborn. They are seeking to do what they see as good. They are trying to build a just society. They are attempting to defend the rights and interests of women. Their indifference to the life of the unborn does not translate into murderous intent.
Finally, we can improve the accuracy of our language and better open hearts and minds by using language that is respectful and charitable. Back in 2002, Father Frank Pavone, the head of Priests for Life, came under fire for being charitable, respectful, and even friends with abortion facilitator Bill Baird. Fr. Pavone and Baird had released a joint statement calling all sides on the abortion debate to use respectful rather than dehumanizing rhetoric. Despite their ardent disagreement on abortion, they worked together for a noble cause. Unfortunately, due to Fr. Pavone's working with the "enemy," his organization suffered a loss of contributors, one of whom wrote to Pavone admonishing him for talking with evil. Fr. Pavone's response: "I do not dialogue with evil. I dialogue with persons and Bill is a person."
Due to the gravity and bloody brutality of the "abortion procedure," it is easy to think of those who have the audacity to defend such a practice, or worse support it, as being depraved, irrational, evil people. Some defenses of abortion are depraved, irrational, and evil. Others are gravely mistaken but well-meaning. The personhood of a week old fetus is not obvious. Someone is not thereby the incarnation of evil because he doesn't see the unborn child's personhood and therefore defends abortion. Nevertheless, even those people who fully recognize the unborn child's humanity and personhood, but would support abortion nonetheless, are still human beings, made in the image and likeness of God. They may be evil people, but they are still people, and what should most motivate our response to them is that the evil they do or defend contradicts their dignity as human persons. The fact that they are evil should motivate the Christian to work for their conversion. Being a Christian means participating in God's plan of salvation, which means we participate in God's plan to make people holy. We set an example for how one should respond to dignity of life in the way we treat defenders and practitioners of abortion.
Due to our living in a fallen world, abortion and other sins against life will be with us until the heavens and the earth are made anew. We cannot completely eliminate the sin of abortion, anymore than we can eliminate the sins of murder, theft, or hatred. We cannot be perfect, but we still strive for perfection, and rightly so. We cannot purge the world of abortion, but we work for such a freedom for life. There are many ways of working for a culture of life: sound legislation, prudent judicial appointments, joyously helping families and families-to-be. This evening I have recommended that we work to persuade the powerful in our culture who advance the cause of abortion rights, and that we would be better served in such an endeavor by using language that is hospitable, accurate, understanding, respectful, and charitable. Nevertheless I have cautioned that there is nothing magical about this strategy. It is not a prescription for certain success. I believe, however, that using language well to open hearts and minds to the truth, beauty, and goodness of life provides a great hope, a hope for ourselves, a hope for the unborn, a hope for our posterity, and a hope for those we are inclined to label enemies.
Pages
