Not a treatise, but I do have a few questions.
On the subject of abortion, neither side claiming to represent critical views really seems to ever get to the question of why. It is always a question of whether, but never why.
Why is that?
If you never ask why and just try to manage something with a law, you’re going to retain (if not create) persistent problems of all kinds.
So, what are the underlying issues that drive a person’s desire (or need) for abortion?
When will we collectively ask that question? And, what are we willing to do about the complexity of the answers we would surely get, if we actually asked? It looks like we now have our chance, but why am I not too expectant of much?
For all the social commentary about it, there doesn't seem to be too much true actionability on the causes of abortion. And, both sides of the political versions of the debate seem guilty of not that much interest in causes.
There’s just something too conspicuous about that.
And, besides the 'issues' involved, how much discussion really is there with the woman who often has to walk alone in this process (I think we know the answer)? And, why is she, much of the time, walking alone anyway? So few seem to actually care about her (or her situation). “Just don’t have an abortion” and then we walk away as if we've solved for something — apparently content with leaving everything else for her to deal with. Besides, does a ‘just say no’ approach to such things really work? We’ve seen that approach before, haven’t we? Perhaps this is just another example of trying to treat the symptoms without addressing the causes.
The woman is held automatically accountable, but when is the man? It took two for it to happen, but it’s left to one to deal with (and too many men, in terms of the debate, seem just fine with that). Seriously? Seriously — it’s not just a woman’s problem. Looking around, it's pretty obvious...it's everyone's problem.
I’m a man and believe in protecting life, so maybe these questions don’t sound the same (to men) as they otherwise might if I were a woman. Why doesn’t the woman seem to have the ability to have the largest input into the discussion, especially in light of the above? Why is it that men get to decide for someone else, for women (where, by the way, do women have that kind of power over men?)? It is a bit more than ironic that men are eager to legislate things on behalf of women, when men are just as responsible for the impact on women as women are. It is a bit indicting, though, that’s never where the conversation goes and women are left to fight for their own interests.
For all those that seem to care SO much about abortion, where will we be now with the consequences of the Roe vs Wade change? What care will directly be given to those actually being impacted? This is more than just a cultural issue; real life situations and consequences are involved. We can’t be selectively pro-life (like only before birth). What about the life the child is born into? What about the life of the mother?
While we seem prone to attack such issues as if they are single-threaded, you can’t effectively claim interest in only certain parts of the picture and not acknowledge the whole thing.
Politicians are easy to bang on, but they do ask for our vote often based on their commitment to the issues they claim to represent, including this one. If they are just doing power-plays by appealing to broad cultural manipulations, they need to stop playing games with people’s lives and get out of the way. If they are serious public servants, they have to be willing to address the complexities involved. They may not have many easy (or better) answers, but they sure ought to be asking better questions. Why else are we electing them?
Part of the problem is that they (we?) don’t really have an appetite for the real wrestling that is needed on conflated and complicated issues. We don’t really want to ask ‘why’ questions? We’re afraid of a protracted, collaborative process. Sometimes too much talking simply results in no action. We want action.
But, we also want the action we want and don’t want to consider the action someone else wants (or needs). Better action requires some of us, something we often don’t want to give. It requires that we are willing to trade efficiency for effectiveness, inclusion of more than one perspective, and a willingness to ask better questions — question like why do we have the problems we have? Trying to fix things without an understanding of the real problems involved forfeits almost every benefit of recognizing that better design regularly yields better results. Better design means more is considered, more is factored in. The solution is better, when we understand the range of the nature of things that impact the result.
We like this collaborative approach (or, at least, the benefits of it) for consumer products. We could like it for public policy. It’s not easy, but it is necessary or you end up with…well, something like what we have now, especially on issues like abortion.
So, do we want to stop abortion or do we want to stop why abortion feels necessary? What are the real problems involved? Who is in the best position to offer helpful perspectives on the salient ideas involved? These are among the better questions, even if there are more inconvenient to work through.
Pro-lifers appear to have gotten what they’ve wanted. But, to what effect? In other words, now what?
But, in this particular climate, why am I afraid I already know the answer….