Anti-Abortion on Campus
All Things Consider — By Naomi Scheinerman on October 5, 2011 at 1:00 pm
The anti-abortion demonstration on the Diag these past two days has received a great deal of attention and caused quite a buzz on campus: in the classroom and in the library, in the locker rooms and the dorms. The graphic and obscene display has provoked varying emotions from disgust to anger, from sadness to humility. I want to take the time to work out some of the thoughts I have both heard as well as hold myself.
One of the first issues is the display’s dangerous perversion of information in the public sphere. First, its claim that abortion is comparable to genocide, particularly that of Cambodia and the Holocaust, is not only baseless and unfounded, it is egregiously offensive and inappropriate. Genocide is “the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group”. Women who have abortions do so for a wide array of reasons, none of which include targeting specific group of people with the goal of ethnic cleansing. Second, some of the banners made analogies to lynching and child abuse. These are two violent crimes lacking any relation or evidence to the discussion of the fetus’s moral status as a human. Third, the display’s claim that “real feminists don’t support abortions” shows a complete lack of understanding of feminist ideology which, in its most basic form, calls for equality between women and men. A real feminist cannot support abortions only in the sense that men can’t get abortions.
Freedom of speech is designed to protect ideas, not allow the spread of propaganda so blatantly lambasted with lies. The public sphere deserves fair and applicable analogies and information, and those who dispense information have the moral burden that it be accurate. If a segment of society believes that abortion is equivalent to murder of a human being, then there are numerous ways of relating that belief without deceiving the public and disgracing the memories of victims of Genocides.
Free speech: most agree that there is a Constitutionally protected right to the display, including its images, messages, location, and time. The Supreme Court has ruled that free speech may only be denied if it harms others. Granted, defining harm is no easy task and its application is both controversial and ambiguous. However, the images were graphic and disturbing and harmed those who were negatively affected by them, despite the pseudo-strategically placed signs warning of “disturbing images ahead”. Furthermore, if there was conclusive evidence that the display insights violence, such as bombings of abortion clinics, then the display should not be allowed. On the other hand, those who assembled the display do indeed believe that abortion does great harm. More importantly, the denial of free speech, including such cases of hate speech, can cause harm via the dangerous abuse of Big Brother-esque governmental power.
Missing from this discourse are the voices of women who have had abortions and those considering abortions, those who regret the decision and those who stand by it. Undue harm could be done to those who have had an abortion and to those who are now deterred because of the display. Underlying any discussion of abortion is the notion of women’s right to decide what to do with their bodies. This display’s grotesque and offensive presentation harmed the potential for society to engage in a civil and productive discourse, one which I believe is important for any society’s moral health.
(Photo by Meredith_Farmer under a Creative Commons license)
| Share and Enjoy: |
|
Tweet |
Tags: abortion, embryos, Ethics, Feminism, Gender, pro-choice, pro-life, protest, University of Michigan
Subscribe
4 Comments
Very intelligently, sensitively, and articulately expressed. I live next to a Planned Parenthood where protestors frequently parade grizzly images of the sort you describe. It seems to me that we as a society should be protecting children (and perhaps adults) from x-rated images in public spaces. Next time you run into abortion protestors with objectionable signs, consider approaching a sign-holder and asking her whether her ultimate aim is to protect children (no doubt the answer will be “yes”). Then ask her if she thinks it is a good idea to involuntarily expose children to disturbing and graphic images. If you are very lucky, this might be a way into a different plane of dialogue on a controversial matter. But don’t hold your breath.
Thank you. Just thank you for stating the flaws in their arguments. Whether one agrees with them or not, their arguments were completely baseless. I’m glad others agree and I hope that this is not the majority of the supporters of the pro-life movement. Otherwise, it’s simply the educated v. these guys.
Thanks so much for your comment Lex. I agree that the personal stories and experiences are neglected on both sides. Your thoughts on desensitization are also completely valid. I think it’s interesting also talking about what the demonstrators were trying to accomplish. Discussion? Discussion’s nice, but if you’re not creating change, then according to anti-abortion supporters, you’re not actually saving any lives. I think if anything your paralyzing experience will drive pro-choice supporters even more into the pro-choice camp.
Really interesting, thorough discussion, Nay. What persuades me the most is your last paragraph. I think that common “abortion debates” on both sides overlook the importance of the neglected voices you pointed out.
Also, when I went through the Diag the other day, I, too, was really disturbed by the comparisons of images and the images themselves, and another thought came to my mind: can we become desensitized to these images if they’re presented to us with little context and in such large quantity. Will we begin (or have we already begun to) detach the humanity-stirred empathy from these powerful images? What implications could that have on how we think about suffering and in our political/personal responses (with or without regards to abortion)?
I spoke with a Pro-Life friend involved in the demonstration about those questions, and she said the images, in her eyes, were meant to start discussions. I found them paralyzing.