Reaching a Truce

“You CAN’T be Catholic and pro-abortion,” reads one bumper sticker slogan from the American Life League (ALL), one of the largest pro-life organizations in the United States, whose mission is “to serve God by helping to build a society that respects and protects individual innocent human beings from inception to natural death.”

Although I support this mission, I cannot help but wonder whom this particular message is meant to address. Never have I met a Catholic—or anyone for that matter—who would label himself pro-abortion, implying that abortion itself is “right” or “good.” But a gap in communication between the pro-life and pro-choice camps has perpetually confounded the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” in American culture.

No doubt the American public loves to charge a matter with controversy. Yet the warring pro-life and pro-choice armies have become polarized to the point that they may as well speak different languages. While they debate the morality and practicality of abortion, they overlook their common concern. Each wants what is best for mother and child, and as Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) puts it, “Nobody wants to need an abortion.” Then there is one national course of action attacking the root of this issue, behind which all can throw their support: prevention.

The national pro-life and pro-choice movements do not speak languages their target audiences understand, resulting in caricatured and destructive images of each side. The annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. and the tagline frequently found on the back of ALL T-shirts illustrate this communication lapse: “You will not silence my message / You will not mock my God / You will stop killing my generation.”

Unfortunately, most do not take kindly to accusations of mass homicide and mockery of my God (not their God, my God). This tactic not only unnecessarily paints abortion as a predominantly spiritual issue to which many cannot relate, but it also creates a potentially irreconcilable segregation between “pious pro-lifers” and “blasphemous, pro-choice killers.” It builds an image of the pro-lifer as a judgmental preacher, rather than a compassionate rationalist.

Yet compassionate reason is the message that pro-lifers ought to present. With more than enough scientific, judicial, and economic arguments against the prevalence of abortion in this country, it is not necessary to resort to spirituality. And with a willingness to listen to the arguments of the most thoughtful pro-choicers, it is clear that their views stem from a concern for the well-being of women and children and an aversion to perpetuating poverty. Character judgments are unwarranted and futile.

Despite the misdirection of ALL and others, it is encouraging to find that groups such as Feminists for Life (FFL) and Harvard Right to Life (HRL), of which I am a member, embrace a more constructive approach. Alongside students who disapprove of HRL’s boldness to display photos of a fetus at various stages of development are many who stop and consider a FFL poster that HRL has distributed: “They say I have a free choice, but without housing on campus for me and my baby, without on-site daycare, without maternity coverage in my health insurance, it sure doesn’t feel like I have much of a choice.” Is it really a choice if abortion is the only option?

This is the question that the pro-life movement must ask pro-choice advocates, and upon considering the answer, perhaps the two camps can reach a consensus. One pro-choice argument maintains that outlawing abortion would only increase illegal procedures. This begs the question: Why do we consider abortion so necessary that women would automatically retreat to the back-alleys? Most agree that a society in which abortion is rare is ideal. The notion of the necessity of abortion concedes that we are failing to address underlying factors.

With nearly 1.3 million U.S. abortions per year, no more than 5 percent of which are in extreme cases including rape or the defense of the mother’s life, neither pro-lifers nor pro-choicers should be satisfied with the status quo. We are not effectively educating the public about contraception or instilling sufficient accountability for unplanned pregnancy. We continue to stigmatize young, single mothers. We are failing to make alternative resources readily available for women of every economic status.

In an ideal society, abortion would not occur, not because it is forbidden, but because it is unnecessary. Immediate illegalization of abortion is no solution if the conditions making abortion so “necessary” are ignored. If we bridge the gap between pro-life and pro-choice to work toward a common goal of prevention by enhancing the availability of alternatives and educating the public, we draw near a society where abortion is a non-issue.

Some pro-choice groups are picking up on this idea. CFFC aims to “end the abortion wars” as it reframes the abortion debate with this prevention-over-prohibition approach. Conservative mouthpiece Ann Coulter has qualms about this shift in direction, stating in an op-ed titled “Abortion Stops a Bleeding Heart” that “the Democrats are trying to ‘reframe’ their message to make people think they believe abortion is wrong.” But who considers abortion “right?” Perhaps tiresome debate is ending and a consensus is being built. Perhaps we are beginning to understand each other.

Perhaps a truce, and not a war, is the answer.

Dawn J. Mackey ’09, a Crimson editorial comper, is a biomedical sciences and engineering concentrator in Dunster House. She is a member of Harvard Right to Life.