THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, January 8, 1995 TAG: 9501080045
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY TONI WHITT, TONY WHARTON AND MAC DANIEL, STAFF WRITERS
LENGTH: Long : 173 lines
Choice.
When two women met Friday in a roundtable discussion on abortion, the barriers immediately went up with that one word.
To Maureen Jard, it means choosing between life and death.
To Melissa Ayres, it means a woman's choice to control her own body.
``You're choosing between if you will or won't have an abortion,'' said Ayres, president of the Tidewater chapter of the National Organization for Women. ``You're choosing what to do with your own body. And I don't want to get into a discussion on choice, so I'm not going to say anything further than that.''
Jard, a member of the Virginia Society for Human Life, stopped the conversation to explain her question.
``I was just curious by your statement,'' Jard said. ``What do those words mean to you? That's why I asked it. I didn't mean to put you on the defensive or want to make points . . . I wouldn't have thought that the answer was the answer you gave me.''
In a two-hour conversation convened by The Virginian-Pilot and The Ledger-Star, advocates on both sides of the abortion issue gathered to discuss obstacles to finding common ground on this national debate.
The newspapers excluded the most radical extremes of the issue, as well as those in the middle -people who aren't sure where they stand, or people whose opinion includes positions from both sides of the debate.
The newspapers brought the group together Friday to talk about the impasse over abortion and where the conflict might be headed in light of recent violence punctuating the issue.
Rooted in this nation's conscience is the belief that open dialogue, informed choices and compromise can usually solve America's most difficult conflicts.
But this gathering - made up of religious leaders, activists and those working with teen pregnancy - found that an honest debate on abortion is nearly impossible. It suggests that leaders of the two sides are not going to find a common answer.
We are no longer able to deliberate on the core issues.
``We talk about the side issues, and we use different definitions for different things,'' said Dean Broyles, a law student at Regent University. ``For example, many Christians would say that abortion itself is murder. A more secular view would say that abortion is a woman's choice. We're coming from two different perspectives. So if we avoid the central issue, we can never solve it.''
It is the inability to discuss the issue and to effect change that has led to the growing violence in the anti-abortion movement, said the Rev. Michael D. McCarron.
McCarron compared violence in the civil rights movement of the 1970s to today's abortion debate, saying violence ``is sometimes the progression of a movement, particularly a movement that begins to feel muzzled - that it feels by law or by society that it cannot speak about this core issue.''
He described the progression as: ``common dialogue, to more articulate and angry dialogue, to even calls for violence in that dialogue.
``Which I would not in any sense agree with - I think that's a real danger, he added. ``I think it's certainly happening in some issues of the abortion debate because I think that a lot of people in the pro-life movement are feeling less and less able to have the conversation.''
For these participants, the path to a middle ground is blocked by language, by differing philosophies and, sometimes, by a lack of willingness to find that path.
``Each side speaks its own language,'' McCarron said. ``It's almost as if you're speaking French and Lithuanian to each other. To find a common language to speak about abortion is one of the main difficulties.
``It's not simple language, in my opinion, about choice or life or birth,'' said McCarron, a Catholic priest at Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Newport News. ``It's more language about, `OK, what is true for our society? What do we want for our society?' . . . Well, if it's that kind of a language, then I can talk to someone who believes that a woman has a right to choose.
``Then I could get to bridges. Language is supposed to provide communication. ''
Even when the different camps understand each other, they often approach the issue in sharply different ways.
Kathy Wilson, a teacher at the Coronado School for pregnant teens in Norfolk, said people may get the idea from the media that their tax money is wasted on programs at her school.
``Look at these girls. They need help, and if they don't get certain kinds of help, this is as far as they're going to go,'' said Wilson, 30.
``They'll get that high school diploma, and they'll end up in Burger King because the money is not out there . . . that they need to go to college, to get the day care they need while they go to college. You give these girls free college, or low-interest college loans, so that they don't have to go around their elbow to get to their thumb, and you will see some changes.''
Wilson supports abortion rights, but some of those present who disagree with her on abortion could agree with her about programs for teenagers. Not Rodd J. Rodriguez, a law student at Regent University.
``She gave some solutions such as providing day care, free education, and so forth and so on,'' he said. ``From our perspective, we would say that the jurisdiction of such care for children in most cases, unless there is no family, is with the family itself.
``Instead of just throwing money at it . . . why isn't there personal responsibility by the individual? There are consequences for our actions.''
While some barriers are internal, the group also said the media are to blame for not responsibly informing the public. They believe the media have helped polarize the issue as much as anyone on the picket lines.
The media's image of the issue is not a true reflection of the debate, they said.
``The definition of life - the media never attempts to explain that,'' Broyles said.
McCarron said: ``The media should avoid vilification. The pro-choice side is not horrible. And the pro-life side is not horrible.''
David Archer, an obstetrician, gynecologist and researcher of reproductive issues for the Jones Institute at Eastern Virginia Medical School, said that ``in the areas where there are no confrontations, the media is not there.''
The panelists also said that John C. Salvi III should not have been turned into an icon for the anti-abortion movement. Instead, many saw him as mentally ill and questioned whether he had thought out a distinct position before going on what police allege was a shooting spree in which two Boston clinic workers were killed and five injured.
``If he goes into a McDonald's, if he shoots up McDonald's, he's crazy,'' Archer said. ``He can't be just rational to make a decision that he hates Big Macs.''
Despite their call for more balance in the media, the anti-abortion faction most often described the abortion discussion as a battle that could only lead to victory for one side, not compromise.
``It's going to be a war over changing the hearts and minds of the people of America,'' Rodriguez said.
``It will be two different sides with two different world views trying to convince America as to which side is right. . . . I think in the end . . . you're going to see some kind of disintegration within society. I think it's already happening. . . . Life has been cheapened.''
Asked if there was any middle ground, McCarron said, ``The middle that I hear . . . is people who say, `I personally would not choose an abortion, but I believe that people should have the right to have one if they want.' That tends to be the middle ground, but I'm not sure that an issue of this central nature to society can long survive on that kind of middle ground.
``I think that's why the debate rages. And I don't think it's a bad thing that the debate rages. I think it's so central to who we are as a society that, inevitably, the middle ground has to shift.''
Yet at the end of the discussion, some of those present, particularly the women, did find a small patch of agreement. Elizabeth Thornton and Wilson, who support pro-choice rights, and Mary Petchel and Jard, who are against abortion, agreed that abortion is a symptom of larger problems, such as teen pregnancy and a lack of self-esteem.
``I feel like we really should get on the bandwagon in helping women, with the programs we can really do things about,'' said Thornton, president of The League of Women Voters of South Hampton Roads. ``This is where we can really meet. I'm interested in hearing about your programs. That's where our common ground is and we should really be working.''
Yes, said Petchel, of the Virginia Society for Human Life.
``I still think that there's a common ground where we can all meet with teen pregnancy,'' she said. ``There are programs out there that are abstinence-based that I think everyone could agree on.'' MEMO: Staff writer Francie Latour contributed to this report.
ILLUSTRATION: Color photos
DEAN BROYLES, A REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW STUDENT
THE REV. MICHAEL D. McCARRON
RODD J. RODRIGUEZ, A REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW STUDENT
KATHY WILSON, OF THE CORONADO SCHOOL FOR PREGNANT TEENS
MARY PECHTEL, OF THE VIRGINIA SOCIETY FOR HUMAN LIFE
Photos
Melissa Ayres, president of the Tidewater chapter of the National
Organization for Women.
Dr. David Archer, Eastern Virginia Medical School
KEYWORDS: ABORTION DEBATE by CNB