the psychology of the abortion debate
as i suggested in my last post, i think that pro-lifers ought to remember that their long term goal is not to change the courts, or even the laws, with respect to abortion. rather, the true goal is to change the attitudes and decision-making of individuals, such that abortion becomes something people choose not to do, perhaps even something unthinkable. this is not to say, of course, that courts and laws will play no role in this, but that their role might not be as big as many people (both pro-life and pro-choice) seem to think.
the idea that such a change is possible no doubt seems naive to many people, probably most people even. nevertheless, that seems to me to be the goal, and i see no reason why pro-lifers should lose their nerve or despair.
in attempting to bring about such change, one thing that pro-lifers will need to do is think more seriously about the psychology, and not just the morality, of abortion. in the past, many pro-lifers seem to have allowed fervency of ethical conviction to substitute for astuteness of psychological observation. the psychology of abortion is important with respect to both: 1) why and how people choose to have an abortion, or encourage others to do so, and 2) how people reason and debate about the morality of abortion. setting aside #1 for now, here are a few observations about the psychology of the abortion debate and some of its unique features:
1) many american women have had abortions. the pro-choice group, national abortion federation, reports on their website that: "If current rates continue, it is estimated that 35% of all women of reproductive age in America today will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45." this means that most all of us know someone who has had an abortion, perhaps someone very close to us. perhaps we have had an abortion, or encouraged someone else to have one. and this means that it will be very difficult for many of us to say that we think abortion is wrong. it is hard to accept that one has done something wrong, or that one's mother or father or sister or brother has done something wrong. it important for pro-lifers to recognize, then, that for many people to admit that one ought not have an abortion is not to make just another concession in a discussion, but to admit something very difficult about oneself or one's loved ones.
2) related to the first point, the sheer prevalance of abortion means that many people who we would otherwise consider to be fine, decent people have had abortions. for this reason alone, it may be hard for us to consider abortion a serious wrong: after all, how could so many kind, thoughtful people do something that was very bad? this point is made even stronger when we recognize that the core reason why abortion is wrong -because it is the destruction of a human life (or, if you prefer, a developing human life)- is such that, if abortion is wrong, it would seem to be a very grave and serious wrong. by the very nature of the case, it is hard to see how one could formulate the pro-life position in such a way as to make abortion a minor wrong, something that one could easily forget about. this makes it all the more difficult, then, to admit that abortion is wrong at all: surely so many decent people couldn't do something that bad, could they? of course, i don' think this stands up particularly well as an argument; history is full of otherwise decent people doing bad things on a large scale, whether those bad things were minor or truly heinous (e.g. slavery, subjugation of women). still, there is something to this point and this way of reasoning, and pro-lifers would do well to take it seriously and address it.
3) as lisa pointed out in her comment, many people are no 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice' as a matter of the subculture into which they were raised. to be pro-life or pro-choice is part of a package deal that might include being republican or democrat, catholic or evangelical or agnostic, rural or urban, etc. thus for many people, the idea of being 'pro-life' carries with it a host of negative associations and a variety of other moral and political commitments. and that means that being pro-life is something that many people haven't even considered, something that is not on their radar screen. it also means that many people will be resistant to adopting a pro-life view not so much because of specific arguments about abortion, but because of their opposition to other things which they associate with the pro-life view, such as being religious or anti-feminist or pro free market. any many people will be pro-choice out of an even vaguer sense that 'this is the kind of person i am.'
i wish that i had something more constructive to say about how an appreciation of these factors might shape a pro-life strategy, or at least contribute positively to the abortion debate. but, i think i will leave it at this for now.
the idea that such a change is possible no doubt seems naive to many people, probably most people even. nevertheless, that seems to me to be the goal, and i see no reason why pro-lifers should lose their nerve or despair.
in attempting to bring about such change, one thing that pro-lifers will need to do is think more seriously about the psychology, and not just the morality, of abortion. in the past, many pro-lifers seem to have allowed fervency of ethical conviction to substitute for astuteness of psychological observation. the psychology of abortion is important with respect to both: 1) why and how people choose to have an abortion, or encourage others to do so, and 2) how people reason and debate about the morality of abortion. setting aside #1 for now, here are a few observations about the psychology of the abortion debate and some of its unique features:
1) many american women have had abortions. the pro-choice group, national abortion federation, reports on their website that: "If current rates continue, it is estimated that 35% of all women of reproductive age in America today will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45." this means that most all of us know someone who has had an abortion, perhaps someone very close to us. perhaps we have had an abortion, or encouraged someone else to have one. and this means that it will be very difficult for many of us to say that we think abortion is wrong. it is hard to accept that one has done something wrong, or that one's mother or father or sister or brother has done something wrong. it important for pro-lifers to recognize, then, that for many people to admit that one ought not have an abortion is not to make just another concession in a discussion, but to admit something very difficult about oneself or one's loved ones.
2) related to the first point, the sheer prevalance of abortion means that many people who we would otherwise consider to be fine, decent people have had abortions. for this reason alone, it may be hard for us to consider abortion a serious wrong: after all, how could so many kind, thoughtful people do something that was very bad? this point is made even stronger when we recognize that the core reason why abortion is wrong -because it is the destruction of a human life (or, if you prefer, a developing human life)- is such that, if abortion is wrong, it would seem to be a very grave and serious wrong. by the very nature of the case, it is hard to see how one could formulate the pro-life position in such a way as to make abortion a minor wrong, something that one could easily forget about. this makes it all the more difficult, then, to admit that abortion is wrong at all: surely so many decent people couldn't do something that bad, could they? of course, i don' think this stands up particularly well as an argument; history is full of otherwise decent people doing bad things on a large scale, whether those bad things were minor or truly heinous (e.g. slavery, subjugation of women). still, there is something to this point and this way of reasoning, and pro-lifers would do well to take it seriously and address it.
3) as lisa pointed out in her comment, many people are no 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice' as a matter of the subculture into which they were raised. to be pro-life or pro-choice is part of a package deal that might include being republican or democrat, catholic or evangelical or agnostic, rural or urban, etc. thus for many people, the idea of being 'pro-life' carries with it a host of negative associations and a variety of other moral and political commitments. and that means that being pro-life is something that many people haven't even considered, something that is not on their radar screen. it also means that many people will be resistant to adopting a pro-life view not so much because of specific arguments about abortion, but because of their opposition to other things which they associate with the pro-life view, such as being religious or anti-feminist or pro free market. any many people will be pro-choice out of an even vaguer sense that 'this is the kind of person i am.'
i wish that i had something more constructive to say about how an appreciation of these factors might shape a pro-life strategy, or at least contribute positively to the abortion debate. but, i think i will leave it at this for now.
posted by micah at 7:09 AM
6 Comments:
I was especially struck by reason 1. The debate really does become more complicated when the issue is personalized; when you hesitate to say abortion is wrong because someone you love (or you yourself) have had an abortion.
But I don't think it's as simple as to say we just don't like to think someone we love has done something wrong. Perhaps that's part of it, but I think the personalization also shows the emotional complexity of the issue. It ceases to be an abstract issue of whether or not killing an unborn fetus is wrong. It gains nuance, people see what pain and heartache the decision is born from, and they identify and empathize with the suffering of the woman who has gotten pregnant.
So maybe the thing that needs to happen to change the psychology of abortion in our culture is for pro-lifers to find a more effective way of personalizing the suffering and plight of the unborn...? Just a thought.
Bethany suggests that maybe the pro-life movement needs to do a better job of conveying the plight of the unborn fetus, that doing so might promote a change in hearts and minds on the issue. Perhaps. I tend to think this backfires more often than not. Certainly the gruesome images of aborted fetus that pro-lifers were fond of putting on posters a few years back were a bad idea and resulted in a collective shielding of the eyes. Many more years ago, a small lapel pin was popular. It was in the shape of tiny feet--the size of a fetus's feet at 8 weeks old (I think). The idea was to use it as a discussion starter. If someone asked about it, you could talk about fetal development and how you can hear a heartbeat 25 days after conception and by eight weeks all major organs are present. I wonder how many people who are not already predisposed to a pro-life stance find those kinds of details compelling when weighed against society's sacred cow--choice.
I do agree with Micah's first point that pro-lifers need to be more cognizant of the fact that people who have had abortions are not the others. They are us. Our family members, our friends, our selves. This knowledge should have an effect on the way we frame our conversations about the issue (or perhaps it should give us the selfish catalyst to frame the conversation in a manner that we should regardless of whether we ourselves are the center)--with larger helpings of compassion and grace.
The magazine I work for recently published an article about how to respond when a friend tells you she's had an abortion (http://www.christianitytoday.com/tcw/2005/001/5.38.html). Our readership is predominantly conservative Christian and we got a HUGE response. Judging from the scores of e-mails I received from women pouring out their hearts about their own abortions and the castigation and guilt they felt, we certainly hit nerve.
I just think we need to delve more deeply into *why* it makes a difference that we personally know people who have had abortions, and then figure out how to "know" a fetus in that same way. Or maybe not a fetus, but rather a person who was going to be aborted, and is now a thriving, living person. I am not sure how that is to be done. But I agree Lisa, the gruesome images are certainly not the way to do it. I definitely wasn't suggesting another campaign of that sort.
It's just my experience that people often feel compassion or pity for someone suffering, and relate to personal narrative. And it is the suffering of the unhappily pregnant mother that is the most obvious and which people on the whole are most aware of. My suggestion is more along the lines of telling pro-life stories that are equally poignant.
one point made by the pro-choice movement that has become a lot more compelling to me since having a child is that sometimes a fetus is better off aborted than left to become a child in a bad evironment. Since having Ramona I've realized afresh how incredibly difficult it would be to raise her alone. single moms have it rough no matter how good the options of care are that are provided for them. I liked the feminists for life group and feel that a hard look needs to be given at our society's acceptance of men fathering children and leaving moms in the lurch. We have laws about men paying child support, but a child (and its mother) need a second caretaker as much or more than money. How should we think about the role of the father in abortion? We look at it as primarily a woman's choice, but due to the fact that we have child support laws and as moral people desire to hold men as responsible for their sexual/reproductive choices as women, we have to address the man's role too. What do you do when one partner wants an abortion and the other doesn't. More often we think of the man wanting the abortion more than the woman, but it could easily be the other way around. It gets so complicated . . . Anyway, I can see afresh the dilemma of a woman who finds herself pregnant and who is looking at the prospects of raising a child without a partner committed to helping with that huge task. The psychological pressure of facing single motherhood and a boyfriend/partner who doesn't want a child, added to the fact that no one can say for sure when life begins makes an abortion (particularly in the first trimester, when the fetus does not look at all human) starts to sound really appealing. When I see the 35% figure I am horrified by the number of aborted babies that represents, but to think about all those babies born into situations where they are not wanted and probably don't have all the resources they need to be well cared-for isn't all that much easier to think about. I'm really trying to wrestle with these tough issues of sexual, reproductive, and child-rearing ethics, and appreciate the points you're raising.
I certainly agree with you Bethany. As much as possible, we need to keep the entire scope of abortion in the conversation, and that includes being a voice for the voiceless (and, on the other side of the procedure, providing safe places for women--and perhaps men, in keeping with Laurie's comments--who have been traumatized by the after-affects of abortion to receive compassion and healing.). The tricky thing, I think, it to do this kind of advocacy without making people feel guilty with a "how could you possibly hurt the tiny, defenseless little babies!?" hysteria. I don't think that's what you're advocating, just thought I'd mention it as what I see to be a danger that needs to be avoided as pro-lifers make a more intentional effort to convey the plight of the unborn. As I think this tone/tactic pisses people off ("how dare you accuse me of hurting defenseless babies!") more often than it really softens their hearts or changes their mind about the true nature of abortion.
not to sound a note of cynicism here, but almost all my friends are pro-choice, and regarding the fetus feet and the "I was aborted but lived" stories, etc. - they hate that shit. one of my friends saw a novelty keychain with a clear plastic preganant woman and peach little fetus swimming in it, and she recoiled from it in horror that it was one of those "pro-life gimmicks."
the walls are too thick, the defenses too high. and largely for good reason. pro-lifers often fail to hear the concerns of pro-choice advocates, and why should the pro-choice advocate believe that the pro-lifer suddenly cares about human rights, when so many pro-lifers care, in fact, only about this human right.
i think what it will take to start to change the terms of the debate in favor of pro-lifers is someone with a stellar human rights record - someone who cares about the millions suffering from AIDS and poverty in Africa, who cares about the millions without healthcare in the States, who cares about the difficulties of childcare for single parents in the States, who cares about those oppressed by rights-abusing dicatorial regimes around the world (and not in a creepy, murderous way, Pat Robertson, and not in a selfish, imperialist way, George Bush) - for this active promoter of human rights to take a stand against abortion, on the same grounds that she stands against poor healthcare coverage and these other issues. i think that type of person would gain the trust of most pro-choice advocates enough to get a fair hearing on abortion issues.
one of the problems with this debate is the way that pro-lifers themselves set the terms. this issue cannot be addressed apart from a host of other issues the single parent confronts (child care, health care, poverty, etc.). in that way, i'm into the feminists for life approach to abortion issues and wish their approach would be the norm for most pro-lifers.
i think it is a good point that we need to be careful how we discuss these issues in view of large number of people personally involved in abortions. it also creates a bit of a conversation problem around abortion, as those people personally involved in abortion decisions have an especially deep committment to the pro-choice position. as the numbers of people who have chosen abortion continue to grow, so will the conversational difficulties for pro-lifers.
and btw, way to represent in the comments, ladies.
Post a Comment
<< Home