Articles

Is it possible to overcome social polarization on abortion?

Javier Garcia-September 9, 2022-Reading time: 5 minutes
people

Testo originale del articolo in inglese qui

Venerdì 24 giugno la Suprema Corte ha annullato la sentenza Roe vs. Wade, che dal 1973 tutelava il "law"abortion in the United States. Once the decision is noted, thousands of people have come to the square to celebrate, while many others have done so to protest. 

The fact is that for more than fifty years abortion has been perhaps the most controversial moral issue in the West.

The pro-life claims seem reasonable, insofar as they believe that they are in the interest of human life. However, those who are in favor of abortion are also convinced that abortion is a human right for women, because they think that embryos or foetuses are not entitled to rights.

Personally I am against abortion but, in these rules, I do not want to evaluate the arguments of both parties. I want to underline the fact that we are clearly in disagreement. If we all acknowledge it, the next thing we can ask ourselves is how to move forward together in clarifying this problem.

It is true that it may be thought that reaching an agreement on this particular matter is impossible. For this reason there are good reasons: the positions of both parties are very tight. The reasons for the controversy are not well understood by one or the other, since there are many contrasting economic interests, it is an issue that involves us emotionally, etc.

Now, after so many centuries of history, I wonder if it is not possible to resolve our differences in a more rational and peaceful way. In the course of history, human beings have resolved our differences by resorting to war, to the squalification of people, and ultimately, to the side or social condemnation. The truth is that this has made sense, because many times the forced imposition of one's own ideas on others has been effective. It has worked on many occasions, imposing a certain vision of the world.

I believe that this is the reason why all of us may feel tempted to import by far the laws that we consider appropriate. And since violence is no longer socially welcomed, unless there are no other possibilities, we prefer not to make them known.

I am probably a little naive, but I wonder if we cannot be able to engage in a calm dialogue on a controversial moral issue. Obviously it is not easy, but if we don't come forward we run the risk of continuing to deepen the polarization that divides our societies more and more.

With the decision of the American court, pro-lifers have won a great victory, overturning a sentence that seemed irremovable. Tomorrow, instead, pro-abortionists will be the next to join the next battle. Now, what I think we can all agree on is that imposing laws on behalf of suitable majorities does not solve social discrepancies, but on the contrary seems to lengthen them. Consequently, we should all accept the need to face a moral debate, which is complex and makes us disagree. Michael Sandel, the famous Harvard professor and winner of the Premio Principessa delle Asturie, has devoted much of his work to explaining why most of the social debates on controversial moral issues have not been heard.

His research shows that it does not matter whether the subject is abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage or surrogate motherhood: in none of these cases has there ever been a real dialogue. Moreover, there are no differences in the way in which in some countries and in others the decision-making processes have been managed.

 In all of them, we find the legislative imposition of some of them on others.

Therefore, if we all want to respect each other and progress as a society, both parties must seek the truth on every issue if we really want to resolve it. 

And how will it be possible to overcome the discrepancies? Personally, I am convinced that in all the arguments on which we do not agree, there are many aspects around the same issue in which we do not agree.
Only starting from what we all agree we can say exactly where we do not agree. And at that point we can still ask ourselves how to live together.

Let's take an example of the recently overturned abortion ruling. The positions of President Joe Biden and of the elected officials are diametrically opposed in judging the Supreme Court's decision. However, both have stressed the importance of avoiding an outbreak of violence. 

The fact that some states now prohibit abortion and others make it even easier does not solve the underlying problem. We are well away from living in serenity among all of us and that we have the conditions to create a climate that allows us to ask the truth about the origin of life.

In this sense, the pro-choice triumphalism cannot be sell-out: it is not enough to ban abortion in some states if all the mothers who have difficulties to grow their own children are not really helped. And even insisting on this victory with the supporters of abortion will not go far (and this indifferently from the fact that they do the same when they claim to be right).

I understand the reasons of the pro-vita demonstrators who are coming to the square to celebrate. It is certainly a great step forward for their cause. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has been very far from affirming that abortion is something that puts an end to a person's life. It has simply said that it is up to the various American states to decide whether to legalize it or not. In doing so, he is implicitly acknowledging that abortion is not killing an innocent person, because if he really thought so, American laws would prohibit it throughout the nation.

Where do I want to arrive with all this discussion? Well, regardless of whether abortion is legal or not in a given state (and we can say the same for any country), the real problem is how to reach an agreement between the two parties. Laws are important and undoubtedly shape a culture, but what I have tried to underline in these rules is that on some issues the emanation of a law does not put an end to the controversy. Now, how can we progress?

Finding a way to solve these problems is not easy, which is why many think that the only thing left to do is to learn a cultural battle. If with this concept we try to put our face in the public debate to justify our own convictions rationally, then I agree that it is very necessary.
However, if conduring the cultural battle means accepting that in society, when there are two different aspects to every controversial issue, only one of the two options can remain in place, then I am not so enthusiastic about the idea.
I don't want to squalify those who think differently, and I don't even want to impose my convictions on them. I would like a society in which both the united and the others have the opportunity to try to convince of their own position without being put on the side for having tried to do it.

Therefore, while I am pleased with the outcome of the Roe v. Wade ruling, I do not have triumphalist tones when confronted by abortion supporters. In fact, they are now feeling more attacted and more comfortable, so a priori it is not so easy for them to accept the arguments of the opposing position.
Instead, I would like to talk to them, try to convince them, not to beat them about a vote that I have come today, but that I may lose tomorrow.
And obviously I am also ready to accept the arguments of the other without personal squalidities, respecting people who do not think like me. In this way, we would really progress in the debate.

La Brújula Newsletter Leave us your email and receive every week the latest news curated with a catholic point of view.
Banner advertising
Banner advertising