 |
| Can we talk? |
I took the picture back in January, at a rally protesting the Roe v. Wade ruling on the anniversary of that landmark decision. I'd happened in on that event almost inadvertently. I'd gone to a gathering - more like a reunion - of those who'd dressed in orange last Summer to stand with Wendy Davis. I showed up appropriately arrived, but didn't know that I was dressed to protest. The gathering turned into a march on the Capitol (it helps to read the details in invitations) to counter-protest.
 |
| Where I stepped in |
Normally under such circumstances, I would NOT have worn orange. Why? When it comes down to the confrontation, I prefer to be not clearly affiliated with either side. I like to engage people on either side without preconceptions - or hostilities. It's the journalist in me trumping the activist. Or maybe it's just my curious nature. I like to get behind the scenes and the labels.
This strategy proved quite revealing last summer when I was trying to sign in to testify against HB2. There was some computer glitch in the sign-up process, and so I commiserated with some of the folks dressed in blue looking to get in the cue, too. After some small talk, one of the women shared what she found so unsettling about "Team Orange."
"What scares me is how they're all-one with this. They're all totally agreed, and we aren't. We have a hard time holding things together here because there's different opinions. But we have to pull all that together because how can we stand up to them if we don't?"
Of course, I was thinking about how I might have heard the same observation about Team Blue from my fellow progressives earlier. And I knew all-too-well from my own heart the mixed feelings here. I am pro choice, not "pro abortion."
After that, it's been hard to look at these public shows of unity from the Religious Right and not remember they are not monolithic - not even about abortion.
Now, looking at that picture, do any of the protesters I saw at the capital in January really believe that "My Generation will END Abortion" - or, if they do, what do they mean by that?
First, as many have observed, illegalizing abortion will not "end" it. So, morally speaking, what do you gain by trying to achieve that - especially given the collateral damage done to public health that we've seen in this campaign?
One way to understand this is the desire to separate yourself from what might seem as having anything to do with abortion. Illegalizing it, I would imagine, would remove any sense of even tacitly condoning it.
What about the moral status of such an intention, especially if it does not reduce the actual number of abortions whether legal or illegal? It seems that all you can accomplish here is the ability to wash your hands of any responsibility, to feel better about yourself.
And what of allied efforts from the Religious Right to demand "abstinence only" sex education and to limit access to safe, effective birth control? We all know that proper sex education along with access to birth control actually DOES reduce the number of abortions. So, by hampering these, don't the Religious Right advocates take responsibility for the outcome of their actions - morally speaking, that is?
I suppose you could argue that you aren't responsible if you do not know.
But when religious conservatives promote a program that runs counter to simple realities that are easily demonstrable - aren't they morally obliged to find out about the results of their actions? And if they find that, despite their intentions, their actions are INCREASING the number of abortions -
In judging your moral responsibility, what's more important - intentions or outcomes? What if you know that the outcomes are BAD, but persist in your actions, insisting that you have good intentions?
I don't know whether disagreements over these kinds of issues were what was threatening Team Blue's unity last summer. Before I could get that far, the registration system was fixed, we all signed up and went out separate ways - to our separate sides.
Still, I wonder if it is possible to have a calm, honest, reasoned discussion about the morality here. If so, what could possibly be gained? Another conversation with Team Blue members at the Capital protest in January makes me doubtful.
This time, I had some explaining to do as I waded into the sea of blue wearing an orange sweatshirt. When asked about it, I simply said the truth - I live in the neighborhood, and this is UT territory. Once over that hurdle, I struck up a conversation with one woman who, it turned out, was a noted activist in that community. Another activist walked up to introduce herself and simply assumes we were connected. They discussed their work promoting abstinence-only sex education.
"But what about the public heath studies that show they aren't as effective as other approaches?" I asked.
"Well, the problem is that birth control doesn't work as well as they claim it does," the well-known activist said. "I know. I tried it and it didn't work."
The other activist agreed. She, too, had many children. Several, it would seem, were unplanned. Then she had a sudden realization.
"I thought you knew each other," she said to her fellow activist.
"No, I just met him," she responded, looking at my orange seatshirt through fresh eyes.
With that, the conversation was over.
First, as many have observed, illegalizing abortion will not "end" it. So, morally speaking, what do you gain by trying to achieve that - especially given the collateral damage done to public health that we've seen in this campaign?
One way to understand this is the desire to separate yourself from what might seem as having anything to do with abortion. Illegalizing it, I would imagine, would remove any sense of even tacitly condoning it.
What about the moral status of such an intention, especially if it does not reduce the actual number of abortions whether legal or illegal? It seems that all you can accomplish here is the ability to wash your hands of any responsibility, to feel better about yourself.
And what of allied efforts from the Religious Right to demand "abstinence only" sex education and to limit access to safe, effective birth control? We all know that proper sex education along with access to birth control actually DOES reduce the number of abortions. So, by hampering these, don't the Religious Right advocates take responsibility for the outcome of their actions - morally speaking, that is?
I suppose you could argue that you aren't responsible if you do not know.
But when religious conservatives promote a program that runs counter to simple realities that are easily demonstrable - aren't they morally obliged to find out about the results of their actions? And if they find that, despite their intentions, their actions are INCREASING the number of abortions -
In judging your moral responsibility, what's more important - intentions or outcomes? What if you know that the outcomes are BAD, but persist in your actions, insisting that you have good intentions?
I don't know whether disagreements over these kinds of issues were what was threatening Team Blue's unity last summer. Before I could get that far, the registration system was fixed, we all signed up and went out separate ways - to our separate sides.
Still, I wonder if it is possible to have a calm, honest, reasoned discussion about the morality here. If so, what could possibly be gained? Another conversation with Team Blue members at the Capital protest in January makes me doubtful.
This time, I had some explaining to do as I waded into the sea of blue wearing an orange sweatshirt. When asked about it, I simply said the truth - I live in the neighborhood, and this is UT territory. Once over that hurdle, I struck up a conversation with one woman who, it turned out, was a noted activist in that community. Another activist walked up to introduce herself and simply assumes we were connected. They discussed their work promoting abstinence-only sex education.
"But what about the public heath studies that show they aren't as effective as other approaches?" I asked.
"Well, the problem is that birth control doesn't work as well as they claim it does," the well-known activist said. "I know. I tried it and it didn't work."
The other activist agreed. She, too, had many children. Several, it would seem, were unplanned. Then she had a sudden realization.
"I thought you knew each other," she said to her fellow activist.
"No, I just met him," she responded, looking at my orange seatshirt through fresh eyes.
With that, the conversation was over.
###
Tips? Suggestions? Ideas? Drop a line to carl (at) inanityofsanity (dot) com
No comments:
Post a Comment