Ten years ago I tangentially touched on the abortion topic. I didn’t address it head on—and won’t be doing so today, either.
Although some people are ambivalent towards the subject, most have pronounced and decided opinions on the matter. Both sides of this volatile issue have been known to take determinedly dogmatic and militant stances. Just throw out the “A” word in casual conversation—and then duck, because someone will start slinging something, be it hurtful words, strong rhetoric, or pure invective.
The issue is currently too emotionally charged to conduct a cogent conversation, so with words seemingly inadequate to win over the opposition, the prudent course of action is often silence. Each side is convinced that the other is ignorantly wrong and hopelessly barbaric. Unfortunately there is apparent truth to that, even if only in media sound bites and the fanatical fringe—which is present in both groups.
What I am sure of is that it will take the efforts of future historians to pronounce a victor. Once the emotion of the present has been dispatched and the distanced logic of another generation takes over, then opinions can converge.The issue is currently too emotionally charged to conduct a cogent conversation, so with words seemingly inadequate to win over the opposition, the prudent course of action is often silence. Click To Tweet
These future historians will look back, concurring with one side and condemning the other. They may uphold the pro-choice group with the same applause as those who promoted civil rights or salute the pro-life group with the same reverence as those who opposed the Holocaust and genocide. And when they do, whatever they decide, public opinion will line up squarely and smartly behind their conclusion.
I know what I want their verdict to be, but I’m not sure if they will agree. Only time will tell.
Wordsmith Peter DeHaan is a magazine publisher by day and a writer by night. Check back each week for updated content, and look for his upcoming book, Woodpecker Wars.