Opponents in Eighth debate have more in common than they might like to admit
Recognising the validity of the other’s values is a pre-requisite to any discussion
EVEN the call for a ‘respectful debate’ about abortion is often a divisive criticism, suggesting that some others, unnamed but implied, are impassioned zealots.
While the interminable debates demand attention, many voters are already wearied by the repetitive cacophony.
It is decades-old, and though different voices have come to the fore since 1983, many of the key points remain the same; life or choice, two sacred values, seemingly irreconcilable.
Commentary focusing on the debate itself is now commonplace. We routinely hear calls to listen properly to the other side, not alienate undecided voters, and speak respectfully.
Whole newspaper articles and radio slots are dedicated to analysing the debate itself. Some report on the referendum as though it were a horse race, while others diagnose the problem of the debate using the ideal of the public sphere and critical thinking; in short, free speech and proper deliberation coupled with rational argumentation without rhetorical dodges like ad hominem attacks or emotional appeals.
Ironically, few if any actually oppose free speech or are committed to irrational argument. So, why is the debate so resolutely divisive?
The problem with contemporary debate is how critique is exercised. While the UN, OECD, universities and media laud ‘critical thinking’ as the passport to rational debate and freedom from illusion, it is not a panacea. Critical thinking is non-moral like maths or science; all it does is scrutinise the logic of arguments.
Furthermore, critique goes beyond mere logical argumentation, towards debunking or unmasking one’s opponents in any debate.
Any value or ideal within a discussion can be critically re-described as an ‘ideology’, with the implication that beliefs derived from society are always unreflective assumptions, and basically wrong.
As Terry Eagleton quipped, ideology is like bad breath – it is always the other person who has it.
In abortion debates, one side accuses the other of having an irrational view of when human life begins, derived from religious conceptions about the soul which have no place in modern society.
The other side responds by accusing the other of having a liberal ideology around choice, derived from the US or UK or somewhere outside the State, wherein a woman’s right to decide what happens within her womb unjustly supersedes the rights of unborn children.
These ‘exposures’ of the ‘illusions’ of the other side quickly descend into sound-bites and name-calling. Grey areas are ignored and neutrals flee.
This is a wider trend with enormous consequences. Donald Trump was elected as a critic of Washington politics, Brexit was a surge against the EU ‘status quo’. Politicians and campaigners of every persuasion can use criticism and satire to support any position, buttressed by sassy internet memes.
Avoiding a divisive argument would mean foregoing critique, which is unthinkable for many campaigners, because exposing the other’s falsehoods seems a key battleground, upon which the referendum will be lost or won.
What is the alternative? A genuinely respectful debate would involve not criticising the other side but recognising their concerns and convictions as genuine. Pro-choice and pro-life are both heartfelt and well-meaning positions.
Recognising the validity of the other’s values, that they weigh matters differently than oneself, is a pre-requisite to discussion.
Pro-choice people need to recognise that pro-lifers genuinely consider embryos as humans-to-be, with inalienable rights to life.
Pro-life people need to recognise that pro-choice people consider abortion a matter of women’s reproductive health.
Neither side is monstrous, oppressive, delusional or pretending.
OF course, pro-choice and pro-life seem irreconcilable in the current debate, and in a referendum, only one can win out. Yet a genuinely respectful debate might reveal the common ground between these entrenched opponents.
If you are pro-life, you should care for the quality of life for parents and children.
If you are pro-choice, you should care that parents and children are supported in making choices.
That means supporting social policies which reduce child poverty nationally, subsidise childcare and support single parents generously – without pressurising people into work.
That means higher taxes and more redistribution, better planning and changing work culture. If campaigners on each side pursued their values beyond single-issue politics, then
‘life choices’ could be improved substantially.