...is
not the story we would expect a few days before the March for Life. However,
having been on too long of a hiatus, I concluded that an ambitious idea for a
blogpost was in order. This idea would need, at its heart, a bold attempt at
dialogue and understanding; one which echoed the sentiments I expressed on my
first radio show. I endured biting cold, with journal in hand, to observe the
National Organization for Women’s pro-choice vigil in front of the Supreme
Court. I am writing this in an effort to be able to establish some sort of foundation
for dialogue and understanding, as both camps seem to further divide themselves
into cultural warfare.
When I
had arrived late, less than fifty pro-choicers were gathered at the steps of
the Supreme Court. Standing near them was a single pro-life protestor, who
angrily yelled and repeated a single phrase: that pro-choicers should “abort
their rhetoric” and not their children. However, this man was ignored, and even
laughed at by the pro-choicers. Regardless of his heroic virtue or intention,
his actions were far less effective than my calm questions and silent jotting
down of notes. I felt he had done dishonor to the unborn he was trying to save.
This does not exonerate the pro-choicers, who, in efforts not uncommon among other
liberal protestors, tried to rouse the crowd with anger. A particular speaker,
from StopPatriarchy.org, in anger at the sole and screaming pro-lifer, declared
boldly that there is “no common ground” with the “Christian Fascists.” I was
even more dismayed when, later on, the crowd cheered together, “Not the Church,
not the state, women must decide their fate.” I decided it was time for me to
start attempting discussion with some of them.
When I introduced myself as a
dialectic pro-lifer to other members of the rally, I feared a negative reaction.
However, they did not show anger or hostility, and appreciated my attention to
what they had to say, even if I disagreed. The facade of anger and alienation
that the pro-choice leaders had used slipped away for a more dialectic,
persuasive tone which, though it sought to announce and also convince, had a
degree of hope for dialogue. As I have learned from this experience, anger at
“opponents” is not only misguided but conceals our true desire to come together
as one human family.
The
largest grievance I judged from my sporadic notes and sparse words with the
attendees was a feminist fear of women being regarded as “breeders” only. I
managed to speak to one woman from StopPatriarchy.com as well. Stop Patriarchy.com attracted my curiosity
since they were not only strongly pro-abortion, but also very anti-pornography.
A feminist from their organization explained that their sexual view of the
woman involved ending the stereotypes that women were either “breeders” or “sex
objects” . The removal of these solely sexual views of women in either instance
was the goal of their organization, since both are seen as oppressive. I concur
strongly with the evil of pornographic objectification of women, but their fear
of a women’s place as only a “breeder” and their subsequent pro-choice view saddened
me.
How has this experience impacted
how I believe the pro-life movement should go forward? Pro-lifers must spend
more time combating the “women as breeders” fear with comfort. Marc Barnes has
done an impressive job at focusing on how a woman can empower herself to manage
her fertility in a natural way by emphasizing methods of natural family planning, and we
here at Gaudium Dei have taken to emphasizing the beauty of children
regardless. Motherhood is more than “breeding;” it is responsible parenting, managing
sexual lifestyles, and sometimes rolling with the punches. Men need to
especially be aware of these worries in women. While these seem like obvious answers
to this fear to pro-lifers, we need to exercise patience in our responses. The
stereotypes established may take
generations to destroy, for strong examples of joyful family life, in the
matter that Marc and others at 1flesh.org describe, need time to one day become a strong voice of the family life that both opposes abortion yet upholds a
woman to more than a “breeder.” Waiting for the effect of these voices requires
patience and faith. In the meantime, we can either choose to ignore
pro-choicers as having any opinions worth hearing, or allow ourselves to listen
genuinely to their concerns, and even consider building a better society
together.
For a
moment, I wondered what the world would be like if men and women who disagreed sought to know the hearts and minds of others,
rather than simply amass once a year and March for their cause. If I were not
alone, pro-lifers could have learned more about what our own cause means in
those moments, not from sneaky investigation, but from honest questioning.
Debate is nice; Marching is nicer, but nothing matches the truly satisfying
hope one experiences when they look into the eyes of another, and ask the
question, “What do you really want me to know about your heart and soul?”
-------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2013 Joseph Jablonski
Photo Credits
- Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers
What a courageous and beautiful way to reach these poor souls! Most are very wounded in many ways and love has a way of reaching a person in very unexpected ways that often do not show immediate results. God bless you and may others follow your example.
ReplyDelete