Week Eight Reponse

Social movements and opposing movements (voices) argue with each other because they believe their case to be just or (slightly) the better choice। Our text states that it is more difficult for social movements in arguing their view over opposing ones because they “have limited resources and find it difficult to prove that an institution, competing movement, norm, or value is utterly without value.” (PASM, pg.248) You cannot make everybody happy, so what do you do when a social movement and opposing movement have equal support? For example: Pro-life vs Pro-choice. Do you think one movement is more just than the other? What beliefs and/or ethics support your views? Does it always have to be black or white, or should ethical values be viewed in grey?

Ethical values should certainly be viewed as grey matter; at least I firmly believe so. Concentrating on the issue of abortion, there evidently is no black or white here. People have been arguing over what is ethical for decades and no solution has been attained. Either people are not listening to each other, not understanding the core of the issue or actions taken to advance either movement have been unsuccessful. Most recently, George Tiller, a doctor in the US who offers abortion services, was shot dead. He has already been attacked in 1993. Those who wish for his death are the anti-abortionists. BBC news succinctly overviews the situation; “To anti-abortionists George Tiller, who was shot dead on Sunday, was a mass murderer known as "Tiller the Killer". To his patients and many pro-choice supporters, he was a hero committed to women in need of help.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8077021.stm). No matter how strongly people feel about an issue, murder should never be a means to spread a message. This act seems more due to anger and a desire for revenge than to a means to effectively change things. Committing murder decreases the anti-abortionists’ credibility and places their say and opinion on the line. Not only is this a criminal act, it also counters what the anti-abortionist movement is about. The murderer is ironically Pro-life. However, as noted in the text Persuasion and Social Movement, a large number of murders have been committed since the 1970’s so “It may be risky for pro-life members and leaders to condemn violence unconditionally because they risk fragmenting the movement. But they must do so for moral and practical reason.” (p. 244). This morality is not on everybody’s mind.
Going back to BBC News’ description, they seem to themselves create a feel for an issue that is black or white. The doctor is either a killer or a hero. They create sides to stir more reaction. The grey matter that is excluded here consists of people who are pro-life who don’t think committing murder is justified in this movement and those who are pro-choice who don’t consider Dr. Tiller a hero. Quite honestly, it seems difficult for even one person to feel so strongly about one side. Our own views are often grey when it comes to issues like abortion. Circumstances always exist. The two movements won’t recognize this; “True believers of each movement are extremists in the sense that they accept no compromises or exceptions to life or choice” (PaSM p. 247). Though many do oppose violence as a solution, they also justify violent actions when committed by “militants [who] defend these higher principles and do not act through self-interest” (PaSM, 244).
Because of the violent acts that continue to occur by the anti-abortionists, the title of just seems out of reach at the moment. It seems there will always be people who strongly believe in one cause or the other; the next step to is to listen to one another and respect alternate views and values.