On Jan. 22, 1973, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of abortion in the watershed case of Roe v. Wade. The anniversary of the decision is an obvious rallying point for both sides of this very controversial issue. People tend to have strongly developed and highly sensitive opinions regarding abortion. The intense feelings that people have towards abortion must be respected by abortion rights advocates and opponents alike, even though their opinions differ. Students may have been shocked this past week by the displays produced by H*yas for Choice. The unsanctioned abortion rights advocates group placed clothing hangers in classrooms bearing the incendiary message “We wouldn’t want things to go back to the old way, would we? Celebrate Roe v. Wade.”
I, for one, feel this was an unproductive and inappropriate measure. Certainly Georgetown students have the right to maintain the position that abortion should be defended. Certainly they have the right to support and assert this opinion with any number of demonstrative methods. They may even have the right to place the hangers in classrooms. They may have the right, but sadly H*yas for Choice lacks the tact to refrain from using such crass methods.
People on both sides of this issue clearly realize that a self-performed abortion with a clothing hanger is a most terrible and unfortunate occurrence. Nobody supports clothing hanger abortions. A reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision would in no way promulgate such abortions. Suggesting otherwise, as H*yas for Choice has done, is absurd, offensive to abortion rights opponents, and tastelessly skirts the issue.
For some the issue is whether or not the government has the right to intervene. For some the issue is determining when a fetus is considered a human life. For some the issue is whether it is morally acceptable to terminate a life when that life is developing in and dependent on a woman’s body. For absolutely no one is the issue “how should abortions be performed?” The fact that some women will perform abortions with clothing hangers does not change the fact that many people view abortion as murder.
Constitutionally the argument is equally irrelevant. Using the same line of reasoning, the government should legalize all illicit drugs. Otherwise, people will manufacture their own drugs and they might use dangerous chemicals or shards of glass to augment their product. The government should preserve the death penalty because otherwise criminals will inhumanely hang themselves. Perhaps the government should sanction all forms of animal torture; otherwise cults will steal family pets instead of purchasing sacrificial kitties from licensed torture dealerships.
The shock value of the H*yas for Choice clothing hangers has been duly noted. Those opposed to abortion because they thought clothing hanger abortions were preferable to abortions performed in clinics realized their folly and promptly changed their ways. All rational people, on the other hand, ought to have been offended by this macabre demonstration. In order for intelligent dialogue to be established between abortion rights advocates and opponents they must first agree what they are arguing about. H*yas for Choice wishes however, to draw attention away from both sides of the argument and merely disgust people into supporting their side.
One Georgetown student, expressing his distaste told a H*yas for Choice member that he was disgusted by the hangers. The H*yas for Choice member responded by saying, “Good, that means it worked.” That means it worked? When people are offended and disgusted, that means you have successfully conveyed your message? Perhaps the Knights of Columbus should walk around shouting “baby killers!” Certainly we would all be offended and disgusted, and the issue would be trivialized, but apparently this is the level to which H*yas for Choice wishes to sink.
In some classrooms the hanger was placed directly below a crucifix. This may not have been deliberate, but H*yas for Choice needs to be mindful of the implications of hanging it there. By no means is everyone expected to conform to Georgetown’s Catholic traditions, but to display prominently a abortion rights advocacy symbol under a crucifix is intolerant of religion, and can be construed as nothing but disrespect toward the large number of Catholic students on campus.
Abortion is a sensitive, complex issue. Such insensitive, irrelevant propaganda is not going to help resolve the issue, although it may mislead and confuse people who are unsure where they stand, and anger those who are sure. If we are going to discuss this complicated issue at a mature collegiate level, we should at least agree to be civil, tactful and respectful.
I am not Catholic or a member of Knights of Columbus.
