Growing up in a predominately conservative and Christian family, the abortion debate was never even considered a controversial topic for my family. Simply put, there was no other option to believe – Abortion was wrong. Always. Looking back, I have a hard time deciding whether this stance was brought about by my families strong political following, or if the religious dimension was the leading dynamic.
I find this debate to be rather polarizing, because it has become such a hot key issue (especially in politics and law). The debate over this ‘choice’, becomes especially heated due to complete lack of compromise from either side. One of the most depressing aspects of the abortion date is the prevalence that it plays in our federal legal system – specifically on the Supreme Court.
I find it especially troubling, that this debate surrounded the appointment of new Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan. The public and the news media were not so much interested in a her capability to hold and function in the nation’s highest judicial system. Instead, the focus came to her stance on abortion – if she would be the Justice that could help the court overturn Roe v. Wade.
Because of all the publicity and controversy that abortion receives, the only way that the debate and issue can be aided is thrown out of the window. Most teachers, professors, school boards, and even students do not want to talk about this ‘taboo” subject because of the strong opinions that people have on the subject. However, as I see it, really the only way to ease the tension and progress with the debate is with open and civil dialogue between disagreeing parties. Unfortunately, due to the press that abortion has received over the years, and continually receives, abortion is not being discussed to avoid conflicts – and therefore no real compromise is in the future of either sides agenda.
Abortion is absolutely polarizing, I agree. Perhaps more so than any other issue on contemporary America’s political landscape. I think your insight on how issues affect the confirmation of Supreme Court justices is especially relevant. With an aging court, people on both sides of the issue (and all issues, but this one does seem to dominate) feverishly examine the intricacies of a potential justice’s past rhetoric and decisions. Focusing so strongly on one issue denigrates the integrity of the nomination and confirmation process and the integrity of the Court. If we want to continue to have at least a facade of a fair and impartial court, we need to at least pretend that the justice’s interpretation of the law is what matters, not their personal ideology.
The debate in the United States may be polarized, but at least there is a debate. Growing up in Sweden, where abortion has been legal since the 1930s, there is no conversation on–in American eyes–current social issues such as abortion, capital punishment, etc. Political debates by large disregard the topics and assume them to be a human right (abortion: yes; capital punishment: no). Sweden is considered one of the most “true democracies” in the world today, but is it democratic to take certain topics “off the table” and assume that a majority of the population agrees with the national policy? Personally, consider it much more important to elect representatives on economic rather then social policy, and I believe that the polarization of America’s political landscape has created an unhealthy interdependence between economic/social policy, assuming candidates from the two parties to be either liberal or conservative on both issues, and decreasing potential for success if they are not. This may very well be one of the reasons for the lack of communication and the improbability to find common ground in a polarized society.