An organization called the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform has been sending out envelopes containing flyers depicting an aborted fetus. The intent is to remove the abortion discussion out of the abstract and inform people of what actually happens, typically, when an unborn child is aborted. At least one person is reported to have been offended by the picture and some postal workers refuse to deliver it, stating that the material is too graphic.
Being offended these days has become a discussion stopper. Some people believe that they have a right to go through life without ever being offended. Therefore, being offended is deemed to be so harmful to their psyche that any form of debate is simply out of the question. It is akin to being knocked out. Being offended, however, is often used as a tactic to avoid dialogue. In these instances, it is more political than personal, more ideological than injurious. As far as images being “graphic”, this seems to be an effective selling point for the motion picture industry.
People do not claim to be offended when they view graphic images in newspapers or magazines that show the deadly aftermath of hurricanes, tornados, or tsunamis. Nor are motorists who are charged with reckless driving offended when shown pictures of pedestrians killed by drunk drivers. Here the purpose is to enlighten and not to offend. It often happens, nonetheless, that people respond to an event with the wrong emotion, such as finding pleasure in someone else’s pain. Sadism is not unknown.
A spokesperson for the Centre was interviewed on the radio recently (August 7, 2015). The interviewer did not see any educational value in the flyers. He made the rather dubious assertion that since a 7-year-old child may have an unwanted pregnancy, it is more than obvious that we need abortion across the board. To her credit, the Centre’s representative kept her cool and tried to return the discussion to education (what really happens in an abortion), human rights (all human beings have the right to live), and how violence is not a solution to personal problems (there are many agencies that can provide help).
No real discussion ever took place. The interviewer, rather than respond to these objectively based points, implied that since many of the people who worked for the Center had religious affiliations (or so he presumed), their position had no credibility. This gambit, of course, was prejudicial and unwarranted. He seemed more concerned about real pictures possibly offending people than the fact that tens of thousands of unborn children are killed every year.
While listening to the interview, I became infuriated. I do not think I would have remained as calm and collected as did the Centre’s spokesperson. The thought came to me that his view on abortion was completely formed, not by reality, but by the Media for which political correctness is de rigueur. He ended the interview by reminding his audience that he occupied the polar opposite of his guests’ position and expressed confidence that he was firmly on the side of the enlightened. I thought his view was the height of ignorance. He was, without realizing it, against human rights, against education, against the integrity of the family, against religion, and stubbornly opposed to dialogue. Was he a mental zombie? It was a good thing, I thought, that I was not the one who was interviewed.
I gradually calmed down and recalled a wise statement penned by Robert Louis Stevenson: “There is so much good in the worst of us, and so much bad in the best of us, that it behooves all of us not to talk about the rest of us.” Here is a basis for dialogue. How can we touch, with the good that we have, the common good that exists in all of us so that a respectful dialogue can commence? “Dialogue” is a wonderful term and meant a great deal to the ancient Greeks. It had reference to speaking “across” the “logos” or the knowable aspect of reality to which we all have a common relationship. Reason is the universal capacity to uncover the intelligibility of things. We become better educated, more knowing when we dialogue with each other and share each other’s insights into the order of reality.
Martin Buber held dialogue in this form very highly. For the author of I-Thou, dialogue was a prerequisite for any authentic relationship between persons as well as between man and God. Such “true dialogue” is based on openness, honesty, and mutual commitment. It is a profoundly sad reality today that the “pro-life” and the “pro-choice” camps remain two monologues in search of dialogue. The former, however, does not shrink from inquiry; the latter does. This is an important point. Dialogue continues to be a neglected and unused form of discussion. We all share the same reality, but not all of us are looking in the same direction.
In his 1990 encyclical, Redemptoris Missio, John Paul II exhorted those engaged in dialogue to “be open to understanding those of the other party without pretense or close-mindedness, but with truth, humility and frankness, knowing that dialogue can enrich each side.” For the now canonized saint, dialogue is not simply a tactic, but a pathway to a shared communion in truth. Those who take dialogue seriously, it should be emphasized, must take it not as an end in itself, but must subordinate toward the realization of a truth that embraces both parties. This is an ideal that needs to be applied to the life issues. Where there is no genuine dialogue, division and confusion perdure.
Dr. Donald DeMarco is a Senior Fellow of Human Life International. He is professor emeritus at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario, an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College in Cromwell, CT, and a regular columnist for St. Austin Review. His latest works, How to Remain Sane in a World That is Going Mad and Poetry That Enters the Mind and Warms the Heart are available through Amazon.com.
Articles by Don:
