Discussing Abortion: Is Civility the Best Approach?

[blackforest]

It came up on another thread that because abortion and support for abortion is so horrible, there is no need for pro-lifers to remain civil. After all, would we be civil toward somebody supporting the slaughter of an entire ethnicity?

I disagree for a number of reasons and maintain that we should remain civil and charitable when trying to reach pro-choicers.

First, an opponent is more likely to dismiss your perspective if you come at the person with anger or rudeness. This only results in bruised egos and hurt feelings, not in any progress toward convincing the opponent.

Second, while supporters of the genocide of born people act out of anger and malice, pro-choicers genuinely believe that the unborn aren’t human and that they’re truly helping women. You need to meet people where they are in these discussions.

Any other thoughts?

 

[StudentMI]

I would agree. Being uncivil will just result in pro lifers being judged as extremist jerks. And as someone said on the other thread, pro choice is sort of the default position for many.

 

[Elf01]

Continuing the discussion from How do I tell my Mother I don't feel safe around her?:

No. Supporters of killing Jews are overtly hateful. Supporters of killing the unborn don’t hate the unborn because the vast majority believe they aren’t human in the first place. They also genuinely think they’re helping women in desperate situations, whereas Hitler’s supporters didn’t claim to kill Jews out of any sort of compassion.

And Jews weren’t classified as fully human by Hitler. I’m sure at least some people genuinely believed it.

Also, on some level pro aborts do understand what they support, otherwise why rare and I’d never have one myself (personally pro life but …).

Especially the personally pro life but people know what they support.

Lots of people are pro-choice because it’s just kind of the default position and they’ve never given it much thought. People who are pro-Holocaust actually had to work to arrive at an evil set of beliefs. People just sort of default to being pro-choice and aren’t necessarily motivated by malice.

Anti Semitism was common at the time, so I don’t see a difference.

If it’s me against a group, arguing without some kindness can also lack effectiveness. Pro-life people are always trying to make “arguments” for life. This may work against un-informed individuals but the pro-choice groups have heard all these before. I sometimes wonder what would happen if pro-life groups tried “killing them with kindness”. Not giving the other group something to fight. Maybe we’d make them see that we are happy people, that having kids didn’t ruin the lives of the moms who chose life.

Violence only brings violence and the same is true of un-kind debate. Hearing something louder doesn’t mean you listen better.

Not saying don’t support pro-life, and battle fights against murder, but we’ve tried the sword for a long time. Trying something else dosen’t mean surrender.

I see the opposite. I think we’ve tried the soft approach and got nowhere.

 

[Elf01]

@camoderator, can Pro Abortion People be merged here please?

 

[puer.dei]

I would agree. Being uncivil will just result in pro lifers being judged as extremist jerks.

Agree 1000%. Just because they have wrong beliefs is no reason to treat them with disrespect. God created them, too.

 

[blackforest]

I’ll respond after the merge. I just don’t want things to get too confusing.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Anti Semitism was common at the time, so I don’t see a difference.

It’s not common now, so someone arriving at a “kill the jews” position in 2020 has actually thought about it and arrived at a really evil position. They’re more culpable than someone who is just sort of swimming with the cultural tide. Lots of people haven’t really thought about it much and don’t understand the prolife argument. A respectful, friendly discussion might be just the thing that leads them to question some of their assumptions.

I mean, what are you proposing at the alternative? We scream at people? Throw rocks at their car? How does that actually help in any way?

Like it or not, abortion is legal in the US. If we want t change that, we need to persuade people to come around to the prolife position. Screaming at people does not actually advance that goal. Shouting at people or shunning them does nothing to change their minds.

 

[catholiclala]

I don’t understand where people get the notion that being uncivil ever wins ANY debate. When has this approach ever been proven true to persuade someone to a different ideology? When I was atheist, people tried to be uncivil to persuade me to be Christian. Guess what, it never worked. None of that made me convert to Catholicism. Now that I am Catholic, I had an anti-religious friend try to persuade me to not be Catholic in an uncivil manner. Guess what, it never worked.

If anything, these kind of communications most always just make the person look overzealous and controlling and force the other to retreat and be dismissive of the stance expressed. There is a reason that many movements get a bad name and aren’t taken seriously. One thing that made me so anti-religion in my past was growing up in the bible belt and experiencing some really questionable behavior and opinions exhibited in the name of Christ. I think anyone who persists in this kind of approach needs to look internally and see why they are drawn towards such volatile interactions. Examine if these methods have ever actually been successful. Is it really wanting to lead people to truth or is it trying to satisfy some other need?

 

[catholiclala]

I also want to add that I think many pro-lifers need to look at their attitude about many issues that are linked to the main issue. For instance, I listened to a podcast yesterday talking with a woman who ended up as an unwed mother in college. Instead of her Catholic parishioners supporting her, most were extremely uncharitable. Would any of them have been shocked is she decided to have an abortion with that kind of shame aimed at her? You can oppose sex before marriage without being negative towards single mothers. I’m not saying everyone is this way but it is not uncommon.

 

[PetraG]

Well, we cannot be uncivil because the command to love our neighbor, whether friend or enemy, precludes unkindness, impatience, rudeness or anything of that nature. It is off the table, no matter what “enhanced result” we think it could produce. The result we hope for is absolutely besides the point.

 

[Elf01]

I mean, what are you proposing at the alternative? We scream at people? Throw rocks at their car? How does that actually help in any way?

Treat them the same way as we would somebody advocating legal murder of a group of born people.

I don’t understand where people get the notion that being uncivil ever wins ANY debate. When has this approach ever been proven true to persuade someone to a different ideology? When I was atheist, people tried to be uncivil to persuade me to be Christian. Guess what, it never worked. None of that made me convert to Catholicism. Now that I am Catholic, I had an anti-religious friend try to persuade me to not be Catholic in an uncivil manner. Guess what, it never worked.

Being uncivil does seem to be how rights have been won though. It took the civil war to end slavery WW2 for the Jews. I don’t think the suffregetes were seen as civil either.

 

[PetraG]

Being uncivil does seem to be how rights have been won though. It took the civil war to end slavery WW2 for the Jews. I don’t think the suffregetes were seen as civil either.

This is an important point!! There is a big difference between being civil and charitable on one hand and remaining silent when there is condemnation of anyone who dares to voice uncomfortable truths on the other hand. That generally boils down to using unvarnished rhetoric concerning the moral principles but refraining from making personal judgments on the unconvinced or the opposed. We are duty-bound to instruct the ignorant and counsel the doubtful, but we are forbidden to go on to judge the soul of another.

 

[catholiclala]

Being uncivil does seem to be how rights have been won though. It took the civil war to end slavery WW2 for the Jews. I don’t think the suffregetes were seen as civil either.

People have been uncivil about this since the 90s and nothing has changed. Abortion rates are the lowest they have been in a really long time. Let’s keep up that momentum by emphasizing the positive. I think more attention should be paid to preventing people from getting abortions, which means teaching about the positives of chastity and if someone does end up pregnant outside of chastity, how keeping the baby is a positive. Endless debates about abortion are just going round and round in circles.

That said, I’m not going to get into a circular debate with you about this so my responses to you end here, in a civil manner.

 

[Riman643]

It’s clear to me that you cannot have civil discussions with child murderers and advocates of child murderer. We need to stop beating around the bush when it comes to the label of “pro-choice”. Choice to what? Oh yeah murder children. I would really hope that someone who is a Nazi isn’t called pro-aryan but rather called out for what they are, which are anti-Semitic jerks. Do we allow reason and civility when discussing why Jews are “the problem” in society? No, we argue it with a repugnant reaction because it is a repugnant stance.

I think we can take the argument to whether the unborn are scientifically human. Some may not know. But once they admit that they are humans, there is really no room for civility if they still believe it is okay to murder children. Jesus himself got angry with the money-changers and animal sellers in the temple. I would hardly call what he did as “civil”. In fact, child sacrifice was punishable by death back then and while I think Jesus would show someone who did that forgiveness in his day, it is pretty clear that the Jews of his time very adamantly against something like this and it would not shock me had Jesus had a strong reaction to it. He would clearly be able to talk and act in manner that is better than I would ever be able to do, but I have a hard time believing he would have a passive stance.

 

[blackforest]

And Jews weren’t classified as fully human by Hitler. I’m sure at least some people genuinely believed it.

They believed in murdering Jewish people because they were indoctrinated to hate them. Abortion rights advocates genuinely think they’re being compassionate toward women.

If you don’t understand where somebody is coming from, even when they’re wrong and misguided, you won’t be able to have any kind of conversation that makes sense to them.

I don’t know how to talk somebody out of blind hatred such as that which Nazis and their sympathizers felt toward the Jews. I don’t believe that most pro-choicers feel blind hatred to the pre-born, however.

 

[puer.dei]

but I have a hard time believing he would have a passive stance.

Being civil doesn’t mean being passive.

 

[Riman643]

Was Jesus “civil” in the temple with the money-changers and animal sellers? I think with your definition that would be a “No”.

 

[puer.dei]

Was Jesus “civil” in the temple with the money-changers and animal sellers? I think with your definition that would be a “No”.

Which in no way contradicts my point that you don’t seem to understand the difference between “civil” and “passive.”

 

[Riman643]

The only civil non-passive way to address this issue is through legislation which I am assuming not many of us are in the position to do so. Otherwise there is no civil way to deal with this issue. The blood and souls of children are on the line.

 

[blackforest]

Was Jesus “civil” in the temple with the money-changers and animal sellers? I think with your definition that would be a “No”.

You’re not the first and certainly won’t be the last Catholic to use this example in order to self-justify righteous anger and excuse away any words or actions resulting from it.

But the fact is, we’re not Jesus.

The only civil non-passive way to address this issue is through legislation which I am assuming not many of us are in the position to do so. Otherwise there is no civil way to deal with this issue.

So if legislation isn’t the answer, and civility isn’t the answer, in your opinion, what is?