Finding Common Ground on the Abortion Debate
In a response to President Barack Obama’s recent speech at Notre Dame addressing the topic of abortion, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne writes:
Facing down protesters who didn’t want him at Notre Dame, President Obama fought back not with harsh words but with the most devastating weapons in his political arsenal: a call for “open hearts,” “open minds,” “fair-minded words” and a search for “common ground.”
There were many messages sent from South Bend. Obama’s opponents seek to reignite the culture wars. He doesn’t. They would reduce religious faith to a narrow set of issues. He refused to join them. They often see theological arguments as leading to certainty. He opted for humility.
Many of my more personal friends know my stance on abortion. It’s a sensitive topic to be discussed in public, but one that I’ve grown slowly more accustomed to speaking out about vocally – not because I hold strongly to any one position on it, but because of how much the abortion discussion has been co-opted and dwarfed by dogma, to the point where the statistical and individual realities of abortion have long been left out of the picture. It’s natural that some of the nuance of reality will be lost in social policy discussions, but on this – on abortion – I feel we’ve reached a breaking point, where the rhetoric surrounding it is actually harming any meaningful effort to address the tensions of the topic. But It’s more important than ever that we know the singular, statistical facts about abortion, and they are these:
Outlawing abortion has no impact on the number of abortions performed – in fact, the countries with the lowest rates of abortion also have the most open and supportive laws regarding abortion.
A full 75% of abortions are driven overwhelmingly by economic motivation – women donʼt feel they can afford to have a baby or will have the necessary support to continue raising a child.
Finally, social and economic supports at a societal level do more to reduce abortion rates than any judicial or legislative efforts. Countries like Sweden, Denmark and the United Kingdom rank among the lowest in terms of abortion rates, despite their very open policies allowing it, and there is a powerful argument to be made that this is directly related to these countries’ systems of universal healthcare and strong safety nets for those of low-income status. In short, in order to see abortion rates decline (as much as it can), we need to see this not as a war against abortion, but instead against poverty.
These three facts make up much of the statistical reality America faces with abortion, and this reality simply doesn’t change based upon your personal disposition, values, or political orientation.
The evangelical American Church needs to realize this. As vocal as some from both sides of the debate have been, and as much as there are people on both sides acting out of the best and most moral reasoning, many still need to acknowledge that the abortion issue is far more complex than they’ve assumed –– and they need recognize that President Obama’s and the Democratic Party’s longstanding commitment to rebuilding our social safety net and providing better social and economic supports for the poorest among us may actually make more of a difference in reducing the rates of abortion than their own efforts. Shouting and demonizing doesn’t change reality, nor does it bring us closer to working out real solutions or to finding a conciliatory center that’s good for us all – and most especially for the women and families facing circumstances which may lead them to choose an abortion.
Instead, we’ve allowed the conversation to devolve into a culture war, and for that proponents on both sides of the debate should be ashamed. We’ve strayed from reality, allowed ourselves to be blinded by jealousy and hate, and hurt those we most need to help. We should instead humbly search out a common ground between these two ultimately insufficient labels, of “Pro Life” and “Pro Choice.” We need to find, as Notre Dame president Reverend John I. Jenkins said, a place of “conciliatory dialogue” where we can approach each other and the matter at hand “with love and a generous spirit.”