A
Ana_v
Guest
Currently I live in South Korea teaching ESL. I have the luxury or misfortune (however you see it) of seeing what is happening in the USA - in regards to the death of George Floyd and the social reaction to the police force -from a distance and not being directly affected by it. On the one hand it gives me the time and space to digest the images, information, and opinions more calmly and (I hope) with greater clarity than if I were caught in the midst of the chaos. On the other hand, it disconnects me from the sense of urgency, despair, and outrage that so many people in America are experiencing on account of racial tensions, BLM demonstrations, and demands for law and order.
So rather than rehashing the normal talking points, I decided to share something that occurred to me.
I was thinking about the Black Lives Matter vs. All Lives Matter rhetoric.
The BLM side argues that in affirming that black lives matter, they are not denying that all lives matter.
Rather, they are affirming that some lives are more socially affected than others. In regards to racial disparities, they argue that black lives are the ones that are most affected under the current conditions in the USA. For this reason they focus on the welfare of black lives.
And for this reason they reject the strategy of employing an All-Lives-Matter approach.
The Pro-Life side, and I should qualify this by making clear that I am talking about the the mainstream conservative, Catholic influences within the Pro-Life movement, argue that in affirming that unborn children matter, they are not denying that all lives matter. Rather, they are affirming that some lives are more socially affected than others.
In regards to protection-under-the-law disparities, they argue that unborn babies are the most affected under the current conditions in the USA.
The issues of immigration, poverty, healthcare, welfare, war, etc. are also important, they say, but they
do not agree with the Seamless Garment or Consistent Life Ethic approach to the Pro-Life cause because they view it as diluting or watering down the gravity of abortion. Combining all social justice
problems under one umbrella term is a way of distracting from the most serious or urgent of the problems that plague society.
For this reason, they reject the Seamless Garment approach.
So rather than rehashing the normal talking points, I decided to share something that occurred to me.
I was thinking about the Black Lives Matter vs. All Lives Matter rhetoric.
The BLM side argues that in affirming that black lives matter, they are not denying that all lives matter.
Rather, they are affirming that some lives are more socially affected than others. In regards to racial disparities, they argue that black lives are the ones that are most affected under the current conditions in the USA. For this reason they focus on the welfare of black lives.
And for this reason they reject the strategy of employing an All-Lives-Matter approach.
The Pro-Life side, and I should qualify this by making clear that I am talking about the the mainstream conservative, Catholic influences within the Pro-Life movement, argue that in affirming that unborn children matter, they are not denying that all lives matter. Rather, they are affirming that some lives are more socially affected than others.
In regards to protection-under-the-law disparities, they argue that unborn babies are the most affected under the current conditions in the USA.
The issues of immigration, poverty, healthcare, welfare, war, etc. are also important, they say, but they
do not agree with the Seamless Garment or Consistent Life Ethic approach to the Pro-Life cause because they view it as diluting or watering down the gravity of abortion. Combining all social justice
problems under one umbrella term is a way of distracting from the most serious or urgent of the problems that plague society.
For this reason, they reject the Seamless Garment approach.
Last edited: