Image courtesy of Morning Consult
Recently, abortion retook center stage in the American political landscape with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. But most of the dialogue that swept the country was focused less on the constitutionality of a woman’s right to have an abortion and more on the morality of abortion generally. Too often, those who dare argue these issues with someone on the other side end up only fortifying their own beliefs. They leave the conversation with a hoarse voice and believing the other person doesn’t care about babies/women.
These discussions about abortion don’t have to end this way. I’ve found that the best way to foster a fruitful debate is to devote the first part of the conversation to nothing more than identifying precisely where your views diverge from the other person’s. For example, the mainstream pro-choice movement is rooted in the idea that the government should not tell a woman what to do with her body. Much of the rhetoric one hears from the left is centered on this point. However, many on the pro-life side of the debate agree completely with that statement. They simply believe the baby is not a part of the mother’s body. So any argument that a pro-choice advocate makes on the grounds that the government should not tell a woman what to do with her body will not change the mind of any such pro-lifer. Furthermore, pro-abortion advocates agree with the pro-life community that killing children is abhorrent. They just don’t believe that the pre-born baby is a child. So, if the pro-life advocate’s base argument is that killing children is immoral, they will be utterly unconvincing because these pro-choice people don’t think they are killing children.
Where these two sides diverge is at the issue of whether the fetus is a part of the mother’s body or a distinct human being. That is the question that should be explored between a pro-bodily-autonomy pro-life advocate and an anti-killing-children pro-choice advocate. To explore this divide, you can ask each other a variety of fascinating, conversation-provoking questions: What are the requirements for something to be an independent life? Are those requirements flawed? (For example, if one of the requirements for life is no dependence on something/someone else, this would mean people with a pacemaker aren’t alive.) When does a developing fetus meet those requirements?
Of course, there are other places where pro-lifers and pro-choicers can diverge. It’s possible that someone who is pro-life doesn’t think anyone should be able to do whatever they want with their own body. It’s also possible that someone who is pro-choice believes that abortion is still justified even if the fetus is a human being (e.g., Judith Thompson’s violinist allegory). But, to have a productive dialogue, you have to find precisely where the divergence is and customize your discussion/arguments to address that point.
It’s also important to understand what it would take to change your own mind. A common epistemological game is to determine your main argument for any given topic and then ask, “Would I still believe what I believe if that argument were perfectly rebutted?” If you say yes, then ask yourself the same question with your best remaining argument. Then keep going. If your best arguments were rebutted and you wouldn’t change your mind at all, then you should question why you believe what you believe and if it would even be possible for your opponent to change your mind. And, of course, you should hold your debate opponents to the same standard. If you make great arguments that rebuts their best points and the other person doesn’t change their mind at all, you most likely will not be able to convince them. Their beliefs aren’t reliant on the arguments they’re making, so rebutting their arguments won’t make them change their mind.
This same principle applies to any controversial topic. Let’s say you’re advocating for the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” by talking about their efficacy. You base your argument on statistics showing that these techniques often uncover critical national security information. Such an approach will be futile if your opponent’s main issue with torturing prisoners for information is that it’s immoral. Even if you make fantastic arguments that show the positive results of it, you will not have convinced your opponent of anything because what you’re saying doesn’t address the morality of torture, their primary concern. One must understand what makes the other person believe what they do.
If you follow these guidelines, you will find that your debates will result in thought-provoking discussions rather than screaming matches. It’s easy to retreat into your strongest argument supported by bumper-sticker political slogans. The conversations that begin by identifying the point of divergence may be uncomfortable but are worth it in the pursuit of truth. The discomfort will result from both of you genuinely exploring your beliefs at a deeper level. Hopefully, your opponent will challenge you as much as you challenge them.
The above is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.