-
The Dystopia We’re Living
As a Black liberal woman in America today, I can’t help but feel like we’re living in the early chapters of a dystopian novel. The frightening part? It’s not fiction.
The rollback of reproductive rights across the country is eerily reminiscent of Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” or Neal Shusterman’s “Unwind” series. These books, which some Republicans would eagerly ban from schools and libraries, paint harrowing pictures of societies where bodily autonomy is a distant memory. Yet, ironically, these same politicians seem intent on creating the very world these authors warned us about.
-
7 Replies
-
I find it interesting that both sides view themselves as protecting freedom. Republicans protect the freedom of the unborn baby, whereas liberals protect the freedom of the mother to make her own choices. It’s like if one group protected the freedom of the Jews while another group protected the rights of Hitler to make his own choices. Everyone’s got a right to freedom, am I right?!
-
That is quite the loaded response. I don’t disagree, but the extremes are detrimental to everyone.
Freedom is not defined by the lack of boundaries, but by the restrictions put in place to protect. The issue, as I see it, is who is being protected.
From what I have observed, Republicans are concerned about protecting Republicans, Democrats are concerned about protecting Democrats. This partisan protectionism has become increasingly prevalent in our political landscape.
It might be time to rethink our definition of Democracy. The foundational principle of “For the people” has devolved into “only for the people who align with my thinking.”
-
Isn’t that the paradox, though? In truth, people have different opinions. Our goal should be to progress towards a higher truth. From a protection standpoint, that would mean enacting laws that best protect those most vulnerable, as they are less likely to be able to protect themselves.
So, while it would appear to be a Republican vs. Democrat issue, that’s an externally manifested symptom of the cause. If we dig a bit deeper, the cause is that people who may or may not fit into a category of one of these political parties have decided that either a woman or a clump of cells/fetus/unborn child is more worthy of protection. But even then, we haven’t dug deep enough.
The interesting thing to note here is that woman is the only term utilized by both sides of this political argument to denote the choice of the person who is pregnant (at least until a completely separate identity politics-based argument came into the picture calling women “pregnant people”), whereas the two sides utilize different terminology to refer to the clump of cells/fetus/unborn child based upon the emotional reaction their chosen term elicits.
So correct me if I’m wrong, but the deepest cause that leads to the grey area argued by the externally manifested groupings of either Republicans or Democrats appears to be within the validity of the clump of cells/fetus/unborn child as worthy of protection rather than the validity of a woman’s right to choose. This is also proven by the fact that the majority of people on both sides say that women should be able to choose what to do with their bodies. Of course, some people want to control what other people do with their bodies on both sides of the aisle, which may be more true of one side than the other. But in general, the cause of the argument seems to be linked more to the stage at which the clump of cells/fetus/unborn child becomes worthy of protection.
-
-
-
Your analysis delves deeper into the issue, which I appreciate. You’re right to point out that the surface-level Republican vs. Democrat divide often masks more fundamental disagreements.
The paradox you mention is indeed at the heart of the matter. Our challenge lies in defining and achieving that “higher truth” you speak of, especially when our starting points differ so dramatically.
I agree that protecting the vulnerable should be a priority. However, even this seemingly straightforward principle becomes contentious when we can’t agree on who the most vulnerable are in any given situation.
Your breakdown of the abortion debate terminology is insightful. It highlights how language shapes our perceptions and, consequently, our policy positions. The fact that both sides can agree on the term “woman” (politics of “pregnant people” notwithstanding) but diverge on how to refer to the fetus is telling.
You’ve pinpointed a critical aspect of the debate: at what point does a developing human life gain the right to protection? This question indeed seems to be at the core of the disagreement, more so than the abstract concept of bodily autonomy.
However, I would argue that this fundamental disagreement still manifests as a partisan issue because our two-party system forces complex, nuanced debates into oversimplified “for” or “against” positions. This polarization then feeds back into the root disagreement, making compromise even harder to achieve.
So while I agree that the core issue is more nuanced than simple party politics, I maintain that our current political structure exacerbates these differences and makes finding common ground increasingly difficult. The challenge remains: how do we foster a political environment that allows for the exploration of these nuances, rather than forcing us into opposing camps?
-
Interesting. I believe you’re correct about the polarization aspect of partisan politics in the particular situation. However, isn’t one of the purposes of jurisprudence to protect the vulnerable? And in order to do that, don’t we need to draw lines based on our then highest understanding? Or am I missing something?
-
-
True Freedom requires Great responsibility. The problem is most people do not like to take responsibility for the actions taken when it doesn’t turn out like they thought. – I do not care for any political party – their goal is to divide the people and gain control and power, the Gov. does not care about you – only your tax dollars and your vote. The more divided the easier to control.
-
Log in to reply.