I’m a big Parks and Rec fan -- relatable, lovable funny characters, true-to-life relationships, the real and the absurd side by side in an earthy yet zany small town. One of the iconic characters and quotables is Pawnee City Manager Chris Traeger, expertly played by Rob Lowe.
Chris is an excessively perky, optimistic person prone to frequent hyperbole. He loves to describe people, things, and moments as “literally” (pronounced “LIH-troll-ee”) his favorite, the best, etc., despite logic suggesting his declarations could not actually be legitimate superlatives without having considered every possible alternative in the universe.
Nonetheless, the peppering of the word “literally” into everyday conversation caught on with a lot of people. While many used it jokingly in an homage to this delightful character, of course some people used it as an augmentative word, an odd misuse meant to bolster the magnitude or emphasis of what these people were saying. And thus, literally -- a word that is “used to emphasize the truth and accuracy of a statement or description” -- came to also have an informal usage: “used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible” (Webster).
Words can become meaningful or meaningless. We can make up words to describe things that are as yet indescribable, and we can also butcher language to invent words that are downright inaccurate, empty, or preposterous (my personal favorite: traveshamockery, used to describe things that are both a travesty, a sham, and a mockery). Sometimes, we use what we’ve got in order to make sense of complex issues; the original intention is usually to increase coherence and clarity, but the result can instead be oversimplification, reduction, or even downright inaccuracy.
I’m not old enough to know the exact origins of the moniker “pro-life,” but as I grew up, I saw the word associated with a social conservatism that sought to uphold the value and dignity of life, chiefly by opposing the legality of and rights to abortion. As political and ideological trends have ebbed and flowed in American politics, and as emphases from Church leaders have tugged back and forth, the emphasis of being “pro-life” has often been mostly, chiefly, or entirely on opposing abortion rights.
Republicans have been the party that consistently and thoroughly sought to limit and push back abortion rights. Simultaneously, they’ve continued to support the death penalty, to support inhumane and draconian immigration policies like family separation and child detention, to oppose reasonable gun control while sustaining excessive gun rights, to put little attention on paid paternity leave, universal health-care, and systemic public educational improvements, and more. To say that this package of positions is pro-life is not only inaccurate; it betrays the definition of the word.
Rather than standing for policies that uphold and advance the value and dignity of life itself, pro-life has come to stand for a narrow, specific agenda, one that aims to elect politicians and sustain the power of a party that will target abortion laws, court appointments, and the overturning of legal precedent. This is neither what the word pro-life literally means nor does it provide any meaningful insight as to the people and policies it modifies.
It is more fitting and accurate to describe the Republican Party, as relates to life and the single issue of abortion, as “anti-abortion-rights,” since it steadily fights to limit or eliminate these rights. Relatedly, while Democrats champion other related issues around women, mothers, and families, their stance on abortion has become primarily about preserving and expanding abortion rights and less about the idea of “choice,” and ought to be described as “pro-abortion-rights”.
If we are to realize a refreshed, renewed approach, a different term with a new chance at really meaning something is in order. Ideally, this would be a word or phrase that would have to be earned by parties, politicians, and policies.
My studies, spirituality, and work and teaching in service and justice with young people has been hugely informed and shaped by Cardinal Bernardin’s consistent ethic of life -- the idea, symbolized by Christ’s seamless garment on the way to the cross (John 19:23-24), that life is completely and inviolably dignified and valuable from conception to natural death. In my teaching and ministry, this has included sharing my personal view and the teaching of the Church that abortion is absolutely morally wrong. Teaching and living this ethic also includes fighting these threats to the unborn as well as issues effecting children, families, adults, and the elderly, including but not limited to education, health-care, gun control, the death penalty (with fresh catechetical explanation), end-of-life care and medical ethics, and sexual ethics.
American politics presents Catholics, and many others of goodwill, who strive to uphold this life ideal with a false political dilemma -- choose either a “pro-life” party that opposes abortion but neglects a broader culture of life or a party that protects and expands abortion but otherwise dedicates itself to many crucial life issues. Third parties like the American Solidarity Party offer an alternative, but the consideration here should broaden beyond just what party to support or which candidate to vote for.
The consistent ethic of life offers the best measuring stick for how a party, politician, or policy reflects much of what is at the core of our Gospel values. Though I will always seek out nuance and deliberate analysis in political and social thought, I also know that succinct monikers can be galvanizing in stirring and growing support.
I think the closest thing we have right now is the “Whole Life Movement,” an alignment of pro-life Democrats, progressives, and feminists who ascribe to the fullness of the consistent ethic of life. I could imagine a healthy slate of Whole Life politicians and leaders -- Democrats who want to contain and reduce abortion rights access to make abortion safe and legal but very rare while still supporting universal health-care, addressing climate change, and constraining second amendment rights responsibly; Republicans who carry their party’s opposition to abortion rights but buck their party with dignified, compassionate immigration stances, a desire to bring health-care to everyone, and sensibility about checking unlimited second amendment rights; and I could imagine third parties that acknowledge the place where the majority of the country is on abortion building out a left-center to right-center coalition on consensus social policies.
 |
| Much like the memories of past seasons and retired players, it's time to send the word "pro-life" up to the rafters, where we might look at it and remember how it was used but not speak it and apply it in modern life anymore. |
Regardless of where we land on what to call this -- and no, I will never accept irregardless as a word -- I am more than ready to retire the word “pro-life.” I don’t want to hear it to describe any party, any politician, or any legislation. I don’t want to hear it to describe any judge, any legal precedent, or any potential court case or side. And I certainly don’t want to use it to describe myself, my faith tradition, or my Church. Its meaning has been distorted to the point of meaninglessness. Pro-life should be retired into the rafters of English language, where it can soon begin collecting dust, instead giving way to a new descriptor and hopefully a new movement.
No comments:
Post a Comment