Letter: Both sides must compromise

It strikes me that there are parallels between the controversy over gun control and the controversy over abortion which might be helpful in coming to some long-term resolution of both issues. That is, both issues involve what one side regards as a fundamental right, versus what the other side regards as a deeply moral matter of life and death. Many of us find ourselves on the “rights” side of one issue and the “life” side of the other, which could be useful in trying to understand the other side. For instance, few of us are willing to budge because we believe that a fundamental right (on one issue) and life (on the other) must be protected.

However, in a democracy, neither side can win everything that they believe is warranted. The only long-term resolution lies in acknowledging some of the concerns of the other side and finding a compromise that both can live with. We can’t use government to control what others do without, in return, sometimes seeing that control used on us.

It might help us move forward on the gun issue if gun enthusiasts would concede that people who choose to kill, or who simply act irresponsibly, are much more likely to actually kill others when they have access to lethal weapons. On the other side, people who want strict gun control need to accept the reality that our Constitution guarantees a right “to keep and bear arms” which is considered fundamental by many of our fellow citizens. The only long-term resolution will be one which both protects this right and regulates it in a way that helps reduce the carnage in our society.

Similarly, the pro-choice side in the abortion debate needs to accept that there are legitimate ethical concerns about the use of abortion in the world today. If we believe life is precious, we cannot be cavalier about ending pregnancies this way. On the other side, people unalterably opposed to abortion must understand that women who cannot control their fertility cannot control their lives, health, careers or family budgets, and therefore cannot concede this important right. The only long-term resolution will be one which protects this right, helps reduce the felt need for it, and regulates abortion in ways which reduce overuse and misuse.

This is not an easy time in our nation to be an active citizen who cares about the issues, but it will continue to be a time of change whether we like it or not. I encourage every adult American to stay engaged and to use your good will with each other and with our legislators to help our nation arrive at the best long-term resolutions currently possible.

Pamela Behan

professor

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by Whatnow - 01/02/2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZtdFtsXBCY&sns=fb

2) Comment by prbeav - 25/01/2013

Compromise has its place, but Professor Behan has not convinced me it applies in these cases. Also, I am concerned when people present our political system as a democracy. We live in a representative republic, with a mixture of how representatives are chosen. Some are democratically elected. The president is elected by the electoral college. Supreme Court members are appointed. The key to being a republic is that we operate under the rule of law. The rule of law works pretty well regarding some simple functions, such as traffic control. For example, everyone stops at red lights so they can have the opportunity to proceed safely at green lights.>>>>Accepting the Supreme Court's decision to grant a woman privacy in the decision whether to remain pregnant or not is difficult for some people. However, since we operate under the rule of law, they must obey. But in the meantime, they are free to spend all there energy and lifetime they wish to try to convince the majority that the Supreme Court is wrong and lobby for legislation to overrule them.>>>>Similarly, the Second Amendment is not under attack. However, people can spend all the time and energy they want trying to convince people not to harm the second amendment.>>>>I like to spend time and energy trying to draw attention to the preamble to the US Constitution as a good replacement for the practice of dividing the people over the influence of God.>>>>I'm reminded of fighting windmills.

3) Comment by potkcalb - 25/01/2013

Neither on the question of guns or abortion is anyone willing to compromise or try to be reasonable about anything. Most of the comments sound like pompous, self righteous, pontificating. I repeat the quote from Romeo and Juliet..."A plague on both your houses."

4) Comment by Whatnow - 25/01/2013

jdk944, well said. If you compromise on your values, then you have none.

5) Comment by DMJ - 25/01/2013

The Left has compromised (or been ineffectual, rather) on both matters. Just look at the myriad restrictions on abortions passed in every state controlled by Republicans. And on gun control? Are you kidding? There are as many guns as people in the U.S.....and 30,000 gun deaths/year. If that's the result of the Left getting it's way, then I'm the next American Idol. Results speak for themselves.

6) Comment by tradewinns - 25/01/2013

the right to bear arms was created in the constitution at the beginning of our nation. to change that is easy, change the constitution. what could be more democratic than that? i am pro choice on abortion. my wife and i did not abort any of our pregnancies, that was and is a personal choice. regardless of my feelings or actions, i do not believe i have the right to tell you what you must do with your life (as long as your actions do not infringe on my rights). you have to make that decision on your own. some want to restrict everyone's rights to fit what they believe. they have no more right to do that than i have to impose my beliefs on them. that's why i'm pro choice, we make our own decisions and live with them.

7) Comment by [e-mail] - 25/01/2013

Behan is asking people to compromise on their core beliefs as though that would solve anything. One might agree to an equitable meet-in-the-middle solution on a budget item, but in the realm of ideas, morality, and core beliefs if one should compromise, then it must be said that he lost the argument and the other side gained something. Government should not be attempting to regulate nor facilitate what people think, feel, or believe.

8) Comment by agagent - 25/01/2013

Instead of compromise let’s see the anti-gun crowd change the constitution if they do not believe in the second amendment. As usual the liberals and the media are lecturing us on firearms while exhibiting their complete lack of knowledge on the subject.

9) Comment by jdk944 - 25/01/2013

Professor Behan, why is there a need to compromise on the two issues you bring up in your letter? One contradicts The Word Of God and the other our constitution!! Two of the primary foundational pillars this country was founded on.

10) Comment by phil - 24/01/2013

This is a good letter that identifies the problems but I think we all already pretty much know what the problems are. Perhaps it will take compromise to solve the problems, but where that compromise actually is has been the same debate that has been going on for many years. Also I am not sure that there is a clear parallel between gun control and life control. Should I give a mother a gun and tell her it is OK to shoot her unborn baby, or should I just tell her to go to an abortion clinic and let a doctor perform an abortion to obtain the same results? The problems are easy to identify - finding solutions is not so easy.