Saturday, 13 June 2009

• The Ten Commandments for Debating Abortion

  I've been at this for ten years or so, variably debating, advocating, and protesting as a pro-life advocate. This isn't my first time at the rodeo. If I had a dollar for every time someone has violated one of these rules, I'd be rich enough to pay off my enlistment and settle down in Texas, where I belong.
  
  This list is by no means extensive, but it does apply to both sides -- though one side may be more likely of violating certain rules than others. But if you're gonna comment on my posts about abortion, read these rules first -- before I call you a jackass and send you packing.
  
  1: Know what you're talking about. Words cannot fully express to anyone how annoyed I get when I hear abortion-choicers make such ignorant statements as, "The unborn are just a lump of cells," or "They're not even human." Don't even bother trying to sound like you know what you're talking about unless you actually do. When I first took a pro-life stance, I did so after having talked to L&D nurses, reading college textbooks on embryology and developmental science, studying Constitutional law, talking with women from a plethora of backgrounds on abortion, etc, etc, etc. And when I got tired of people insinuating I did not know what I was talking about (a violation of rule 2), I took a college course on embryology. I probably know as much about human development in the first 12 weeks as a first-year obstetrics student. If you don't at least have an interest in finding out the facts before opening your mouth, keep it shut.
  
  2: Avoid ad hominems like they're the swine flu. "Ad hominem" is a Latin term which means, "against the man." It is a logical error in which a person attacks another's character or other unrelated topic in order to avoid the actual issue. Such ad hominems often overheard: "You just want to control women." "You think it's okay to kill babies." "You don't know what women are going through." "You have no respect for human life." Keep the debate about the issue at hand; not only will it keep things civil, but if you demonstrate respect, you might actually be able to get your opponent to listen to rule number 5.
  
  3: Stop making assumptions. This ties in closely with rule number 2. Don't assume that because the person you are talking to is an abortion-choicer, he or she is automatically irreligious scum. Don't assume that because the person you're talking to is pro-life, he or she is automatically straight, white, and Christian. There are Atheists who oppose abortion and Catholics who believe it should remain legal. There are pro-life homosexuals and abortion-choice heterosexuals. There are pro-life Democrats and abortion-choice Republicans -- and, party platform aside, fully half of all Libertarians are pro-life. There are members of both sexes, all races, and all religions across all realms and spectrum of the debate. Spend more time listening and less time talking, and you just might have less chance of making an ass of yourself.
  
  4: Think consistently. If your views on abortion run counter to views you have on other issues (for instance, killing or rape), ensure that you have either examined all stances for error or have at least thought through to the logical conclusion of your ideas. I cannot tell you how many people I have talked to who have used arguments for second trimester abortion that could easily be used to defend infanticide and involuntary assisted suicide. Don't get angry with your opponent if he or she asks you to define your terms and to extend the logical basis of your argument to its conclusion. You may find that your ideas run counter to what you actually believe is right -- leading you to rule number 5.
  
  5: Be willing to admit when you're wrong. This is the biggest, least-followed, and most-hated of all rules in any real-life debate. When I was a young girl, before I bothered to give the abortion question any legitimate thought or time in my mind, I simply assumed that, since I was uninformed, I couldn't make any kind of decision about the lives of others any better than they could. I was very much "pro-choice," not out of reason or rationality, but because it just seemed like the "best" solution for all involved. It wasn't until I deeply considered the issue, examined the evidence, and applied consistency of thought to it that I realized the error in my logic and became pro-life. Since then even my pro-life philosophy itself has evolved from one based largely on religious belief, to an areligious foundation of Libertarianism and Constitutional consistency. It is because of my discussions with others who have challenged my thoughts and ideas that these views continue to change. I have often told others, if it can be PROVEN to me that the abortion-choice philosophy is one based on fact, logic, and correct application of science, I will change my mind once again. So far, after ten years, this evidence has yet to surface -- yet I remain, as always, willing to examine any evidence that comes my way -- so long as it is consistent with The Rules.
  
  6: Don't make logical errors. This is a personal pet peeve of mine, but it's a big one. Non sequiturs, begging the question, anecdotal evidence, and my BIGGEST peeve, post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguments -- none of these belong in a debate between two reasonable, rational people. If you can't play nice, you shouldn't play at all.
  
  7: Be clear. This is another pet peeve, one that can make or break even the best of thinkers. Here's the cold, hard, truth: You can be the most intelligent, most rational, most well-informed person on Earth, but if you write or speak like a drunk five year-old and don't have some kind of mental or physical handicap, no one is going to listen to you. I work 8 hours a day, take care of a house and a husband, and am currently incubating a human being; I don't have the mental energy to sift through pages of "wut r u talking aboot my english iz grate 4 reelz." I'm pretty sure my cat could write better than that, and she's down syndrome. Know what you want to say, and how you want to say it, in the most clear, rational way you are able. And if your opponent is unclear on what you mean, differ to rule number 8.
  
  8: Define your terms. Abortion-choicers and pro-lifers tend to use a lot of the same language, while meaning completely different things. For instance, when an abortion-choicer talks about "life," he is most often referring to what he considers "association with acknowledged persons" or "recognized humanity" or mechanical features of what they believe define persons, while the pro-lifer uses the term "life" to define any being which exhibits the physical and scientific characteristics of being animate. Pro-lifers talk about "humanity" in biological terms and association with homo sapiens, while abortion-choicers more generally refer to "humanity" in terms of "personhood."  Pro-lifers disregard definitions of "personhood" as merely philosophical and subjective, while abortion-choicers rely on "personhood" as an indication of legal and social protection. If you are unsure which definitions of common terms your opponent is using, ask -- and be willing to define your own terminology. If you find that you cannot without being self-contradictory, refer to rules 5 and 1.
  
  9: Talk a walk on the wild side. Before entering an abortion debate, make sure you are not allowing personal biases to influence your agenda. Take into consideration, if you know it, your opponent's background, experiences, and personality. Walk in his or her shoes and see whether or not his or her experience may offer a richer basis for thought than your own. In debate we called this devil's advocate: arguing the other side in order to examine flaws in your own thought. And when you do this, be reasonable: Do not simply assume that because your opponent is abortion-choice, she has no respect for human life; or, if he is pro-life, don't assume that it is because he wants to revoke suffrage. If you do, you should take another look at rules 2 and 3.
  
  10: Be respectful. This one is just self-explanatory. There are always going to be those people who simply want to hang on to their ideas, no matter how much evidence weighs against them. There will always be those people who will ignore their own flaws while demanding you examine your own, even if your logic is sound. Let them, and move along your own way. Respectfully tell them you will not discuss the issue further unless they will respect you as you respect them. Then follow through, and don't get dragged into an all-out mental brawl. Such arguments are what has deadlocked the abortion debate these last 30 years. It's time to move on, respect others, and command respect from others. We deserve it, and so does the issue.

  • 6:43 PM
  • 65 Views
  • 16 eProps
  • 14 Comments