Where is this place called common ground?

For many years the people who oppose abortion used attempts at guilt, intimidation, and social stigma as their main line of offence against both providers of abortion and women who availed themselves of abortion services.  Closely aligned with these were dire warnings of the after effects of abortion - based primarily on horror stories that were the result of illegal abortion prior to 1972.  The initial organized onslaught against abortion services was led by the Roman Catholic church so it is inevitable that many of the values of the abortion opposition movement closely parallel Catholic dogma on this issue. 

 At the same time a reactionary spirit was afoot in the US which had had enough of the 'free love' licentious 60's and was in a pendulum swing turning back to a form of religion that was also pushing a return to 'fundamental values".  A number of issues conspired to bring these religious groups, who had treated each other as the enemy up to this point, together in an effort to oppose government.  Racial disharmony, prayer in schools, what was seen as an attack on religion, caused them to more and more combine forces in their own interest.  They really never had a large scale common cause, however, until, unthinkably, Roe turned their world upside down and provided former enemies with the reason to make a 'deal with the devil'.

The fact that the root of abortion opposition and currently much of the leadership of the movement, originates with Roman Catholicism, has slanted the argument and the aims of the movement in some particular ways.  The Church stands to lose far too much if it concedes any ground on it's doctrine of 'life begins at conception' and 'all life is sacred' .  This doctrine leads to NFP as the sanctioned and preferred method of birth control for the movement because other methods may cause an 'abortifacient' effect in that they may cause a fertilized ovum to fail to implant.  It also, whether Roman Catholic or Fundamentalist Protestant, means that sex outside of marriage, and for reasons other than marital love in an accepting of children manner, is not only frowned upon but actively discouraged. It really matters little that the vast majority of Catholics are ignoring the Churches teaching on birth control and that Catholic women are aborting pregnancies in the same numbers as their non catholic sisters.  In this area it is the Fundamentalist Christians that actually show a lower ratio than Catholics.

So that's a quick overview of the background. 

There are already areas of agreement.

Both abortion supporters and abortion opponents are in agreement that there are just too many abortions used as a method of dealing with pregnancy.  They both agree that teen pregnancy is one of the major factors leading to the high numbers.  They know that birth control failure is a major factor for non teens.  They also know that the number of second trimester abortions is a symptom of a severely dysfunctional system of abortion use when compared with Europe.

So the areas both sides to this debate might see a need to join forces on are reducing the number of second trimester abortions and reducing the number of teen abortions.

In Sweden a young teen, who has been aware of the facts of life for years now, approaches her first sexual experience, not the same way as North American teens by possibly buying a condom and hoping for the best when she gives up her virginity a sort of 'end of innocence' act  - but by discussing the subject with her parents and preparing for her 'sexual debut' - a new beginning act.  Swedish boys are also taught the importance of sex in life and how important his role is in making the debut of the girl he chooses to have sex with  a warm and loving experience.  Both families will possibly be involved in insuring the atmosphere and freedom, and that proper pregnancy precautions are present and a part of the experience and are being properly used as instructed.  They are prepared for a responsible and loving sexual life and sex is recognized as a part of the human condition. In this atmosphere unplanned teen pregnancies and consequently unplanned teen abortions are a fraction of those in North America.

When it comes to second trimester abortions Canada and the United States while similar in sexual practice patterns, show two very different patterns in abortion frequency  with Canada being similar to the European and particularly the British experience which have certainly a much better record and lower per capita nubers.  THE MAJOR REASON for this is easy access to abortion in the first trimester - both from a geographic and a legislative viewpoint.

So there are two areas both could work on - IF there was a will.  But what causes the two parties,  after all this time,  to continue to view each other as enemies, even in areas where they could both agree there needs to be change.

What prevents us from working together?

My bias needs to be shown here.  I am a choice supporter. I will state unequivocally that as long as the goal of the abortion opposition movement is the return to illegal abortion I will not see them as possible partners for any form of common endeavor.  I know, and if they are truthful they know, that illegal abortion will not stop abortion but will lead to an underground abortion business, unregulated, and run by people that are usually not engaged in law abiding endeavors.  We usually refer to them as organized criminals. These are the people whose actions led to deaths before Roe and the slip back to women dying on hospital lawns on Monday morning will be swift.  If anybody wants to understand how fast this underground can be organized take a look at the Polish record where abortion was illegalized, at the behest of the Catholic Church, after the fall of communism and the underground abortion industry flourishes today.  Some of the doctors involved are the same ones involved before it was illegalized but it has meant they can charge three times what they used to and are answerable to nobody.  "Charter Travel" to surrounding countries for abortions is a thriving business.  The women of Rumania could also speak to the inhumane injustices of the forced involuntary gestation Coucesqeau, the birth dictator,  forced on them. Just as the experiment with  alcohol and drug prohibition are impossible to win so a ban on abortion will not be successful - except in hurting, maiming, and killing women.

Here are some of the reasons I will continue to question the sincerity of anybody from the Abortion Opposition came who claims to be interested in common ground and will rather believe that this is simply another strategic switch on their part - just like the strategic switch which caused them drop the 'woman as murderer of her baby' when they realized they could appear to be more sympathetic by adopting a 'woman as victim' approach.  In this latter the woman is depicted as either too stupid to understand what women have understood since they lived in caves - the meaning of a missed period -  or if she is not too stupid, she is too gullible and easily taken advantage by unscrupulous abortion providers who lie in wait behind every bush to capture naive unsuspecting women and inflict PASS on them. According to this belief system, and contrary to all properly conducted after abortion studies, no women ever approach abortion simply because they have decided that a pregnancy is not something they want to have as a part of their life at this time, and the decision will not cause them to descend to a paroxysm of guilt and depression.  The studies show the opposite to be the truth.

What common ground is not!

The search for common ground is not a tradeoff,  where one side agrees not to perform the D&X procedure in exchange for no further harassment on chemical (RU-486) abortions. It's not a collaborative effort to engage in vexatious litigation against abortion providers.  It's not a collaborative effort to assist in the underhanded efforts of abortion opponents to introduce unwarranted and unnecessary over regulation, regulation that does not apply to other similar medical facilities with similar records,  under the guise of concern for patient safety.  It's not a collaborative campaigh to deamonize abortion providers under the cloak of  'rooting out the bad providers'. That job can and will be done by the various licencing bodies. It's not collaborating to introduce modern 'back alley abortion laws' which are really delaying tactics - like the supposed informed consent and waiting period combination laws.   It's not collaborating with abortion opponents in an effort to undermine the leadership of the various groups with an interest in abortion - groups like NOW and NARAL - rather than active participation in the groups thus making sure that they reflect your views.  It's not political action to have a spurious non existent procedure banned under the impression that later abortions when they are needed can be performed in some aesthetically pleasing way.

What are my personal requirements before we can start?

So what would it take for me to actually believe abortion opponents are capable of working with me in an effort to reduce the number and need for abortions.

First and foremost there must be an agreement that the objective of returning abortion to it's illegal status will be dropped.

It is also critical that the practice of portraying all abortion providers and abortion facilities as  'evil' cease. 

There needs to be a recognition that our current policies and methods with respect to sex education are a contributing factor to the large teenage abortion numbers and a proper study of methods in other countries should be undertaken with the objective of adapting the best and most successful experiences to the current school system. We must recognize that humans are sexual creatures and be prepared to deal with that reality rather than pretend we are not and pretend celibacy works.  Celibacy does no even work in the clergy - which should be the most motivated to make it work - and the experience from that sector shows the dysfunctional nature of promoting celibacy.  Do we really want to inflict, experiences that we know from experience will be evilly dysfunctional, on society as a whole?

There needs to be a recognition that aborton opponents that by failing to turn over to authorities those who commit illegal acts - who hide in plain view in their midst - they become co-conspirators and that they are a party to those illegal acts.

The rhetoric of hate must be recognized as a contributing factor to the climate of terror that creates justification for the real terrorists of the movement and it should be made clear, by turning them in, that such members will no longer be tolerated and in a spirit of peace the rhetoric of hate must be removed.

While I have no doubt some of the graphic depictions of aborted fetuses used by abortion opponents are actually what they purport to be these are by no means the norm with respect to abortions,  and the practice of displaying these as the norm, especially without ever showing the reasons for such abortions, is dishonest to the extreme and furthermore is not done for education purposes but is an attempt to turn up the rhetoric and the climate of hate up another notch. It must be recognized for the hatemongering it is and stopped.

While I disagree on some interpretations of studies, and will recognize that there can be honest disagreement in such studies I have never gone to an abortion opposition site on the net that did not contain lies. These are not errors but outright lies, and the people who supply the material for the sites know this, because some of the areas I most commonly see lies are in the contributions from doctors in the abortion opposition movement. These lies are then picked up as truth by well meaning followers who repeat them in their own sites and nobody in the movement does anything to try to emphasize a need for more honesty.  Surely there are those in the movement that recognize that a movement built on lies is not a moral movement and until the lies are purged the movement will remain morally bankrupt.

When I see a sincere movement toward these aims by abortion opponents I will actually believe there is some chance we can find common ground in areas where it is in our interest to collaborate and that these are people who, despite our differences, I can trust.  Until then I will stand firm and while I will recognize the sincerity and basic goodness of some of my opponents I will not be moved to co-operate with them but simply not to fight so hard against them.

Is honesty and truth too much to ask in return for my co-operation?

Final test.

Frequently, when an abortion opponent tells me s/he is interested in common ground, I post this question which I consider a type of litmus test. 

"Since we both know making abortion illegal will not stop abortion but will simply make it more dangerous and kill more women what is your stand on illegalizing abortion again? "

Eileen