April 19, 2007
Guns And Abortions
CBS' Dick Meyer Says Those Two Reignited Arguments Won't Be Resolved Anytime Soon
-
(AP)
-
Interactive Virginia Tech Tragedy Deadly shooting rampage on Virginia Tech campus leaves 33 dead.
-
Interactive Guns In America State-by-state gun laws and death rates, maps of recent school and workplace shootings and facts on who's at risk.
-
Interactive Abortion Debate It's one of the most hotly debated political and social issues in America. Review a history of that debate since the historic Roe v. Wade decision.
Two big arguments were enflamed this week, both old and both unending.
The slaughter at Virginia Tech rekindles an argument about controlling firearms. The decision by the Supreme Court to uphold a Congressional ban on what that law calls partial-birth abortion will fire up the debate about controlling female bodies and fetuses. These are not resolvable arguments in our society. Resolution requires some common ground, a shared moral vocabulary, values that can be weighed on the same scale. We don't have that.
The vehemence of the gun control and abortion arguments in America is extraordinary. That vehemence — the volume and intensity of hostilities — will get worse, temporarily, in the wake of an extraordinary cruel and sick crime and in the wake of a landmark Supreme Court decision. Gun rights advocates will feel threatened; abortion rights advocates will feel threatened.
But it is important, to my mind at least, to recognize that as frustrating and ceaseless as these debates are, they are not skirmishes in a culture war and they are not signs of a polarized polity acting out. That is how the dominant narrative of our politics describes our politics, our redness and our blueness. It is narrative that contributes to the belligerence and recalcitrance of our obnoxious style of political argument.
The culture war model is too superficial. We are way more complicated than that. And way more confused. We aren't polarized, we are pluralized.
That pluralism runs deeper than diversity, than being a country with lots of creeds and colors. It is a pluralism of values and moralities, of competing and colliding ethical worldviews. There aren't just two, red and blue. We Americans, above all, it seems, are consumers — pickers and choosers. Our beliefs aren't exempt from that. One can be red on gun control and blue on abortion; many are.
Some issues are vehemence-magnets. Abortion and guns are at the top of the list.
The common language we have for sorting out this cacophony of interests is Constitutional law. It works well in the big picture. These big disputes are weighed and carefully balanced, all sides are heard from, the process is fair and transparent and the system is stable. But from a different angle, legal arguments don't settle or even calm our arguments. They can't.
Indeed, rights talk hardens positions for most people. An argument about the Second Amendment will get hotter faster than an argument about the practicality of gun laws. An argument about a Constitutional right to privacy calcifies in the same way. On some level, gun rights advocates are from Mars and gun control advocates are from Venus. Abortion rights advocates are from Saturn and anti-abortion rights people are from Jupiter. Our view of rights does not exist in the Platonic vacuum of constitutional law.
This is apparent in the Supreme Court opinions on this abortion ruling. Justice Kennedy, in upholding the ban on this abortion procedure, said the ruling shows that "respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child." In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg wrote that "this way of thinking reflects ancient notions of women's place in the family and under the Constitution — ideas that have since been discredited." Worldviews collide.
The gun control debate will simmer down soon. One of the ways the political culture digests atrocities like Virginia Tech is to rehash the gun fight. It has an aspect of ritual to it.
The abortion debate, on the other hand, will stay hot — perhaps hotter than at any point since Roe v. Wade. Despite that heat, it is important to note that the legal debate argument will likely never end for good. And few political arguments will be settled and reconciled.
My advice is to listen least to the loudest.
Dick Meyer is the editorial director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington.
If you prefer e-mail to public comments, complaints or arguments, send them along to Against the Grain. We may occasionally publish some of the interesting (and civil) ones, sometimes in edited form.
By Dick Meyer
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
PARTNERS
     |
Add a Comment See all 105 Comments
- www.giannajessen.com
survived a saline abortion in the womb.
now she speaks to the world and she sings too.
she's gorgeous. gifted. www.giannajessen.com - Reply to this comment
- Meyer's advice "listen least to the loudest" is one of the dumbest things i've EVER read.
the house is burning down! make sure you "whisper". duh! - Reply to this comment
- It is sad a newborn alive is thrown away after birth. The Mum can now take the newborn to a hospital,fire house ,cops few hours after birth.I know the young girl in most likely is scared. It is better to do than let the poor helpness child die. Many children are abused so it is better to give them up .It is best to fix people who abuse,can't care for themsevles from bearing children.This is not cold but thinking of others so they don't have to go thru abortion.
- Reply to this comment
- MichelleM99:
I am sorry that you had to bear such things in your life... I wish you peace. - Reply to this comment
- I am old now. When I was young,homeless,with health issues,born blind and multi disabled, poor.dumped as a child on the state,a baby is the last thing to worry about when moved out of a blind centre. 1.Give it up at birth if she lived,2 put it in foster care,3 Abort.A woman does do alot thinking and talking to the right people who know her case and it is not entered into lightly. The Mum would forever wonder about the baby given up or taken from her at birth. A woman too sick to carry a child for health reasons should not.The fact is some unbonrs are aborted. I am sorry but it happens. Yes it hurts. For years it does.
- Reply to this comment
- On the subject of gun control:
If matches start forest fires, should we ban them?
If pencils cause misspelled words, should we ban them?
Come on people, guns don't kill people, people kill people. A car can be used to kill a person as are many other things... use your imagination... - Reply to this comment
- MichelleM99:
Ever hear of adoption? Ever thought of that option? I have met quite a few adopted adults and I can tell you there views on abortion. If abortion was an option then, they would not be here...and they are delightful people... - Reply to this comment
- My stand on abortion has taken many positions over the years... I don't believe in it, but there is a persons choice... I have seen the repercussions of it though in the women who have had. The guilt and shame afterwards that lasts for years. What a convoluted society. We are just as advanced as the Greeks and the Romans were... It was also common practice for the woman to leave the unwanted child at the rubbage heap outside of town too... We're just more civilized in our manner. We either chop and drop or salt the child to death....
- Reply to this comment
- Ok, and since you didn't offer me any logical argument to support your statement, I am supposed to change my mind based on what exactly?
Posted by sy2502 at 07:26 PM : Apr 20, 2007
So when do you call it a living being? When the heart starts to beat or when there is brain activity? Either way, it's a life and no it's not being kept alive on a machine... like a comatose person is. Which is a waste of time and money, not to say the person's body left there in limbo... - Reply to this comment
- This is America and FREE to speake. My father and Vets who went in the armed forces for the freedoms we each hold dear.
Hurts when the truth be told by wemen in *men's*so called world. In case you forgot the constitution was was written by and for white,church going,males only.Women were nobody when that constitution was drafted and wrote.
I don't want the govt telling us to have children just because they say so. No you can't and won't.
Pro lifers must stop censoring our voices.
Life is not pretty when one is poor,homeless,no family,and they are worried about the unborn.It's easy for them to preach and try to shame us.Pro lifers go home and don't speak for me. Some are aborted. It painful as it is without the details. - Reply to this comment
- The abortion argument from the point of view of many pro-choice people revolves around balking at the idea of a small group of people who have religious views forcing their beliefs on the rest of us. Actually, many who would not consider having an abortion will fight ferociously against anyone who tries to dictate their behavior. Americans don't like it; they believe in religious freedom. It is infuriating to have someone shaking their finger, telling them what a sinner they are. This is at the heart of the debate and, yes, it will be with us for a long time.
- Reply to this comment
- singinrick.....and frog legs taste pretty good
- Reply to this comment
- With the abortion situation, no one can tell people what to do with their bodies, yes it is wrong to have an abortion late in the pregnancy, but no one knows what is going on with the women who want or needs it. This is getting out of hand the congress can not tell a women or any one what to to with their bodies. It's the person decision not any one else. The congress don't know what's going on with any one at all and they want to keep passing laws about people can not do things with their bodies.
- Reply to this comment
- I think that just because people do things that doesn't mean that every one can blame others for it. Yes they have guns on TV and games but it doesn't say go around shooting people, it's just movies. Now what people decide to do is up to them and came out of there heads not the TV or games. Every time something happens the media or congress is quick to blame it on other people instead of blaming the person of the crimes that they commit. The VT shooting happened one one was expecting that and no one knows what he was mad about, he could've received a F on a paper or going through stress no one knows. Every one needs to look at the person before they set out to blame others for actions that goes on.
- Reply to this comment
- sy2502,
What does science have to do with this? - Reply to this comment
- You can spin it anyway you want, it is still killing another living being to have an abortion. Period!!
Posted by guysdigdirt at 06:52 PM : Apr 20, 2007
Ok, and since you didn't offer me any logical argument to support your statement, I am supposed to change my mind based on what exactly? - Reply to this comment
- Precisely, it changed from not being a person to being one. If it was always a person we wouldn't be talking about change! Living things are made of non-living materials, i.e. chemical compounds. Proteins are part of your body: does it mean they are alive? No, sorry, does it mean they are A PERSON? The fetus has the building blocks for a person, but it is NOT a person, the same way that a pile of bricks is NOT a house.
Posted by sy2502
-----------------------------------
Sounds like slick wililie rationalizing his way out of haveing had sexual relations with an intern.
You can spin it anyway you want, it is still killing another living being to have an abortion. Period!! - Reply to this comment
- For over 30 years the Supreme Court has declared the issue of abortion off-limits to state and federal legislators. Whereas legislators can pass thousands of laws that pertain to guns, cigarettes, and alcohol, they have not been allowed to tamper with abortion. Abortion is no longer the holy grail. Perhaps we will begin to see some balance now. If legislators can make laws that affect our daily lives, why must abortion be off-limits?
- Reply to this comment
- An embryo is an individual "thing" that is genetically different than the mother. It is not "part" of the mother, but only lives inside of the mother.
--------------
So is any microbe in your body.
In an embryo or fetus you can find the characteristics of living things.
-------------------
I never said the fetus isn't a living thing, I said it isn't a person and therefore doesn't enjoy the same rights of a person.
The only thing that happened to that embryo is that it grew and changed just like every other living things does.
------------------
Precisely, it changed from not being a person to being one. If it was always a person we wouldn't be talking about change! Living things are made of non-living materials, i.e. chemical compounds. Proteins are part of your body: does it mean they are alive? No, sorry, does it mean they are A PERSON? The fetus has the building blocks for a person, but it is NOT a person, the same way that a pile of bricks is NOT a house.
- Reply to this comment
- high five afmca!
After I was asked what the scientific proof is that a fetus is not a person, the only rebuttal I got was "god puts the baby in the woman's body". Go figure! Either you give me a logic, reasonable answer, or shut up! - Reply to this comment
