A few weeks ago, I found myself in an amusing situation. Larry, a good friend, and I were all at a Theology of Tap. Larry and the friend got into a debate about a topic that Larry and I have covered countless times over the past years. I have argued with Larry and this friend (separately) often enough that I knew all their arguments and counterarguments, as well as their style of arguing -- what each tone, hand gesture, facial expression, and phrase meant. So I saw the exact moment when they hit an impasse and started to argue in circles.
The frustrating problem with following the debate on a subjects such as Right to Life issues and feminism is that most people have reached that point. Politicians and activists reach it in different places, and different activists reach it in different places, but most people seek new audiences, rather than new debates. (Which is a fine strategy: one of our greatest social problems is indifference and new people need to hear our messages.)
With the introduction of legislation regard sex-selective abortion, there was a chance to spark new debate and raise a host of problems often unseen. I am ashamed to admit that, while I knew about the proposed legislation banning sex-selective abortion, I did not really follow the debate. Then I read this commentary in the Post, which hurt both my feminist and my pro-life heart. Kaur's main point is that both sides failed to address the real problems related to sex-selective abortion because they were each so deeply entrenched in their pro-life/pro-abortion agendas.
We should do better than that. Whether or not abortion should be legal, the fact is that where baby girls are aborted because they are not male, something is very wrong. This issue should unite across the aisle because it isn't so much about whether or not abortion should be legal as it is about how we value human people. Devaluing baby girls means devaluing grown women. Devaluing grown women means devaluing all people. In rhetoric, both parties and both agendas claim to value human persons. If Kaur is right, the debate has reached a point where human persons are forgotten.
No comments:
Post a Comment