Earlier this week, RH Reality Check published an article by Francis Kissling about the idea of dialogue between the pro-choice and anti-choice communities. This article was a response to one published last week by Amanda Marcotte, in which Marcotte stated that she did not believe the dialogue with anti-choicers was ever useful because “it’s impossible to have a dialogue with someone who refuses to speak honestly about their positions.”
Both Kissling and Marcotte made reference to a conference that Kissling helped organize earlier this fall. The event, held at Princeton University, was to facilitate dialogue between the anti-choice and pro-choice communities. Whether or not the conference met its goals is an open question; at the very least, it led William Saletan, a columnist for Slate, to propose a rather provocative “compromise.”
Kissling makes as strong a case in favor of dialogue as Marcotte makes against it, but I’m more inclined to agree with Kissling’s interpretation – not because I agree with everything she says, but because I think it’s time for a new approach to protecting the right to choose. Over the past three decades, the pro-choice side has won many important victories, but in too many parts of this country, abortion is legal in name only and barely accessible; the Hyde Amendment is going nowhere; and the very word “abortion” is so stigmatized. Maybe actually talking to those who disagree with us about why they feel the way they do, and looking for that common ground, isn’t the worst approach to try.
Of course, I think discussing a woman’s right to choose with Randall Terry, or any other extremist, would be a colossal waste of time. But there are a lot of people in the anti-choice community who are a lot more moderate, and with whom I think that honest communication would be useful. And here I have to take issue with Marcotte’s assertion that no dialogue with someone that holds a different position can be honest. There’s nothing dishonest about saying we disagree, but we can still talk. When I speak with someone who’s anti-choice, I’m not accepting or condoning their views. In fact, I’m having the conversation with them to try and change their minds; sometimes I succeed, and sometimes I don’t. But simply having these conversations doesn’t mean that I agree with them, or that I’m somehow being less than truthful. Maybe I’m missing Marcotte’s point, but I don’t see how dishonesty automatically enters a conversation between someone who is pro-choice and someone who isn’t.
This is my opinion, based on a combination of optimism and personal experience. I’d be interested to hear from others in the community about what they think – is dialogue with the anti-choice side a necessity? A long-overdue approach, or a horrible idea? Has it ever worked for you?
I’ve tried dialogue many times, every time it has gotten no where. The only time I was actually getting somewhere with an anti was in a public forum. Other anti-choicers decided to budge in and call the anti I was speaking with a pro-abort/murderer/nazi, etc, just for speaking civilly with me. Then the conversation ended. Great, huh?
I do appreciate those who have the the will to engage with antis. I prefer to use my energy towards different types of activism, but I don’t think my type of activism is better than those who choose to engage. It takes all types to make the pro-choice movement whole. I don’t think engaging should include “compromise”, however. We’re not planning a party while disagreeing on the theme, we’re talking about women’s basic human rights. There is no room for compromise when it comes to women’s lives.
The AbortionGang wrote about Saletan’s pieces on “compromise” http://abortiongang.org/2010/11/an-open-letter-to-william-saletan-please-write-another-book-about-abortion/ I love this post. It’s long, but definitely worth the read.
I watched a bit of the “Open Hearts, Open Minds” conference and it had a BIG anti-choice slant, IMO. It featured both pro and anti-choicers, but women were hardly even considered in the debate. At all.
I’m not going to call anyone’s activism useless or claim that it’s not as good as mine. Engaging just isn’t the kind of activism for me. I, personally, get more done when I use my energy in other ways. That may not work the same for you, or for Kissling, and that’s okay.. I appreciate the pro-choice activism either way
ProChoiceGal, thanks so much for your thoughtful comment. My conversations with antis have always been civil, especially compared to the encounter you described, but your response definitely makes a strong case for why it’s so important the pro-choice community is open to, and accepting of, all different kinds of approaches.
There cannot be a dialogue as long as you call pro-lifers “anti-choice.” Any issue can be framed as pro or anti-choice. For example, those in favor of a citizen’s right to bear arms is pro-choice because he believes that people have the right to choose whether or not they want to own a gun. Conversely, proponents of gun control are anti-choice because they want to deprive citizens of that choice. The term “pro-choice” is as much of a canard as is the term “pro-life.”
To be pro-life means to allow fetuses the “choice” to live. Pro-choicers, in granting women the carte blanche “choice” to exterminate their unborn children (without the consent or even knowledge of the father, by the way), are depriving those children of all of the choices they would have made had they been granted the most basic of rights: to live.
I think that anyone that would want to cut off all potential of a dialogue simply because I use the term ‘anti-choice’ was never very interested in having that dialogue in the first place. I’ve had plenty of interesting and thought-provoking conversations with people that use the term ‘pro-life,’ and they in turn have not seemed to find my own choice of words a reason to end all discussion. Setting up such arbitrary barriers is one reason that abortion and reproductive rights are so stigmatized and polarized in this country, and why common ground has so far eluded many people. Your words indicate this as well; you seem to have no problem with making blanket assertions, such as that women do not tell their partners about their abortions, that fail to grasp the complexity and reality of so many people’s lives.
I think there can, and should, be dialogue, and I welcome having those conversations with people that are actually willing to go beyond rhetoric and assumptions.
Oh Sarah!
I have found that anyone who intentionally labels someone something that he doesn’t want to be labeled was never interested in having a dialogue with that person in the first place.
You call us anti-choice because you want to demonize us. And then you have the audacity to claim that your demonizing of us shouldn’t stop us from having a dialogue with you. That’s rich.
We call liberals “progressives” because that’s what they want to be called. We call the Democrat party the Democratic party because that what it calls itself. Call the pro-life movement “pro life” because that is what they have chosen to name their movement. Do you always start your “dialogues” by offending the person with whom you wish to converse?
By the way, I am pro-choice . . . I think fetuses should have the choice to live. We should appoint gaurdian ad litems to speak for the due process rights of human life forms that are too young to speak for themselves. That’s what compassionate liberalism looks like. The only reason you don’t favor protecting the unborn is because they can’t be seen, cuddled and dressed up in cute Gap outfits. In short, they cannot speak for themselves. Out of sight, out of mind.
Finally, I didn’t say women don’t tell their partners about their abortions. I am sure many do. What I said was that pro-abortionists – two can play the pejorative labelling game – oppose any law that requires them to notify the father before they abort his offspring. And if a woman cannot afford to bring the child to term and support it afterward how is that she can abort the child without his consent? And if she chooses not to abort the child, how is that she can force the father to support the child even though he might have preferred that it be aborted because having a child at this time was “inconvenient’ for him?
You’re a true believer, Sarah. And true believers will say and do anything to advance their cause. As Eric Hoffer said, “facts are counter-revolutionary.” You believe youa are 100% on the side of the angels and those with whom you disagree (we anti-choicers) are 100% on the side of the devils. I am not that certain that the sun will rise in the morning.
I think it is clear from my work that I disagree with you, but it seems increasingly clear from your comments that continuing this particular discussion in this forum is counterproductive. Thank you.