来源：《基督科学箴言报》
原文刊登日期：2022年5月23日
When reporters Jessica Mendoza and Samantha Laine Perfas packed their bags for Louisiana, they knew they were about to wade knee-deep into one of the nation’s most rancorous debates.
当记者杰西卡·门多萨和萨曼莎·莱恩·佩尔法斯收拾行囊前往路易斯安那州时，她们知道自己即将卷入美国最激烈的辩论之一。
It was 2019 and it looked like the question of reproductive rights might once again reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The reporting team had set their sights on Louisiana because state lawmakers had taken an increasingly restrictive approach to abortion access. Once on the ground, Sam and Jess quickly discovered that the debate was not nearly as black and white for individuals as the rhetoric suggested.
那是2019年，生育权问题似乎可能再次提交给美国最高法院。报道小组将目光投向了路易斯安那州，因为该州立法者对获得堕胎服务采取了越来越严格的措施。一到那里，萨曼莎和杰西卡就很快发现，辩论对个人来说并不像言辞所暗示的那样是非黑即白。
“Most of the time when you talk to people it’s not immediately pro and anti,” Jess says. “There’s a lot of space in between. ... Sometimes that spectrum gets lost in the conversation.”
杰西卡说：“大多数时候，当你与人交谈时，并不会马上得到赞成或反对这样的答复。这两者之间有很大的空间……有时这种多样的看法在对话中会消失。”
At the national level, the discussion is typically framed in stark terms, in which people fall into one of two camps: abolitionists, who oppose any abortion as a violation of the sanctity of life; and absolutists, who believe that abortion should be available to anyone who needs one, regardless of circumstance. “Nationally it’s difficult to have a nuanced conversation because it can be easier to just put people in boxes,” Sam says.
在国家层面，讨论通常是以明显不同的措辞进行的，人们分为两个阵营：废除主义者，他们反对任何堕胎，认为这是对生命神圣性的侵犯；还有绝对论者，他们认为任何需要堕胎的人都应该可以堕胎，无论情况如何。萨曼莎说：“在全美范围内，很难进行细致入微的对话，因为把人们分成不同的类别更容易。”
As Americans wait to see how the Supreme Court rules in Dobbs v. Jackson, emotions – and legislation – are running hot. A draft opinion, first published by Politico, indicated that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, and a related opinion, 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey, would likely be overturned. The leaked draft rules that there is no constitutional right to an abortion and places the decision-making back in the hands of state legislatures.
当美国人在等待最高法院如何裁决Dobbs诉Jackson一案时，情绪和立法正在升温。一份最初由Politico发布的意见书草稿表明，1973年的Roe诉Wade案以及1992年的计划生育联盟诉Casey案可能会被推翻。泄露的草搞判决，宪法没有规定堕胎的权利，并将决策权交回各州立法机构手中。
Thoughtful conversation on the issue has always been hard to come by, but never more so than following this leak.
关于这个问题的深思熟虑的讨论一直很难，但在这次泄密之后更是如此。
In reality, Americans’ views are complex. They overwhelmingly support retaining some level of federally guaranteed access to abortion by 2-to-1, recent polls show. Only about a quarter, however, say that right should be entirely unrestricted, while only 12% say the practice should never be allowed.
事实上，美国人的观点很复杂。最近的民调显示，绝大多数人支持保留一定程度的联邦堕胎权保障，支持和反对的比例是2:1。然而，只有大约四分之一的人认为堕胎权应该完全不受限制，只有12%的人认为堕胎永远不应该被允许。
Yet many Americans with mixed views are reluctant even to broach the topic. “I think that’s because they know that, depending on who they’re talking to, they could be judged,” Sam says.
然而，许多持不同观点的美国人甚至不愿提出这个话题。“我认为这是因为他们知道，取决于交谈对象，他们可能会被评判，”萨曼莎说。
Indeed, the public debate often devolves into demonization. “Typically people who identify with one part of the movement will use terms for people that they oppose in ways that those people might not appreciate,” says Jess. “That’s hard if there’s no set of terms that everyone agrees on ... to have a productive and constructive conversation.”
事实上，公众的辩论经常演变成妖魔化。“一般来说，社会运动某一方的人会用那些他们反对的人可能不理解的词语，”杰西卡说。“如果没有一套大家都认同的词语，那就很难进行富有成效和建设性的对话。”
Finding political middle ground will require individuals to overcome this rhetorical dichotomy and reluctance to listen to each other. “I understand why people don’t want to talk about it,” Sam says. But if there is any hope of healing this rift, we need to brave these difficult conversations “with compassion and empathy.”
要找到政治上的中间立场，需要个人克服这种言辞上的二分法和不愿意倾听对方的情绪。“我理解为什么人们不想谈论它，”萨曼莎说。但如果有任何希望弥合这一裂痕，我们就需要“带着同情和同理心”勇敢面对这些艰难的对话