When Cam Higby, a rising conservative political commentator known for sparking debate, settled himself in front of the University of Chicago’s Regenstein Library on October 13th, it was no surprise when he revealed his topic of discussion for the afternoon, setting up a sign reading: “BAN ABORTION! LET’S TALK!” The heated debates that followed Higby’s invitation highlighted a key issue in the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate: The fundamental moral and definitional incongruence between both sides.
As was demonstrated in real time by the nature of Higby’s confrontations with the UChicago students, it is easy to rush into such a heated topic, assuming your side to have absolute moral superiority. This is where the volatility and inability of either side to reconcile their commonalities on this issue stems: assuming that the other side maintains villainous intentions. This assumption often causes one to break the rules of civil dialogue, and henceforth, discourse becomes futile in achieving either side’s goals.
Two major factors always come to dominate discussions on abortion. These are how one chooses to define a human being, and the importance assigned to utilitarianism. Both sides’ arguments in this debate hinge almost entirely on these two topics. In the views of most pro-life advocates, it is argued that a human life begins immediately after a sperm’s fertilization of an egg–the point at which a unique DNA sequence is created. This view demands that if one believes all human life to be intrinsically valuable, it is their moral duty to protect such a life. However, many pro-choice advocates disagree with this definition of when one is considered a human being. The most popular definition among this camp is one more based on a fetus’ development of perceptive faculties and self-sufficiency. With this definition, they argue it is more beneficial to both the fetus and society that the pregnancy be terminated now, through the most painless means, rather than allow a child to be raised by parents who were unprepared, unwilling, or unable to properly care for the child’s needs. Thus, we are left with a moral dilemma based on two conflicting perspectives, far from what anyone would call “black and white.”
Despite this, each opponent believes the other is evil–that their adversary either doesn’t care for the lives of babies, or doesn’t care for the lives of women–that the other side wishes to control them, and so on. Here is where honest discussion breaks down. For why would anyone even consider the views of ones deemed evil? Why would they ever sit down, truthfully reflect, and hear their dissenters out? They wouldn’t, and that is exactly what I saw at Cam Higby’s abortion debate. The majority of Higby’s challengers would rush into the conversation with hatred for their opponent. They listened only for opportunities to rebut, completely talking past, not to, Higby, many examples of which can be found on Higby’s Instagram. While spectating, it often became apparent that the underlying views of some of these UChicago students were far closer in their moral character to Higby’s than initially expected, and yet none realized this. They were blinded by vitriol–by the belief that their enemy worked in bad faith.
Despite the impossible nature of such a task due to their fundamentally different moral perspectives, advocates on both sides were so concerned with disproving their opposition that they forgot how to listen. This is what has turned so many people’s fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, family, and friends into their enemies. It is a backwards way of thinking if one’s goal is to truly make change and convince others of their convictions.
Watching this take place, I came to the conclusion that there needs to be serious change in the way we view our ideological counterparts and how we approach conversing with them.
If it is our goal as a society to identify our differences in opinion and search for common ground, we are sorely failing via our current methods. I encourage all who hold an opinion one way or the other on this issue, or any issue for that matter, to sit down and listen to someone who disagrees with you. If you find yourself in frustration, do not walk away or yell–ask a question; you may find the answer understandable. Do this, and decide for yourself whether your opponent is fueled by hate. Dialogue has always been humanity’s greatest asset; do not throw that tool away.