There is a serious problem with debating in our society. Not only has the standard of debating gone down in the sectors of society where debating is a key skill (politicians, journalists, etc) but with the advent of Twitter and other social media, everyone and anyone can join a debate.
The majority of people have very poor debating skills. Bigotry, extremism and saving-face get in the way of the most sensible and obvious conclusions.
While studying for my A-levels my general studies course included an exercise in debating. The teacher arranged two 1-hour debates: the first on abortion and the second on euthenasia. In effect, we would be tackling the very difficult subjects of when does life begin and when does it end?
The general studies class was small so, unlike the debating session held in my GCSE English class, everyone would have ample time to get involved and contribute to the discussion. I realised I would need some preparation.
This was the days before the internet and it was very difficult to find information, something which would be unimaginable to those who grew up with the internet. I visited the library to view some journals, which offered nothing on either subject - even if they had, there was no guarantee the information was up-to-date.
I remembered seeing a discussion on TV a year earlier, the time limit on abortion had made the news because it was being reviewed. I hazilly recalled the limit was 24 weeks and this was based on the point at which the fetus could survive outside the womb. This would form the basis of my argument.
The day of the first debate arrived. I entered the classroom and took my seat. Only five other students had turned up. Fortunately we all held a range of views so the teacher didn’t need to get involved as devil’s advocate.
The debate started with the woman’s right to choose when they want to have children. We can all choose to use contraception (only religious extremists would argue against that) and there is very little time difference between using contraception and taking a morning-after pill.
Even so, this is where the first disagreement arose. Some people believe a life begins at conception. This is where I entered the debate, stating the current time limit enforced in the UK and how that relates to a life that can sustain itself outside the womb.
Most of the class were nodding. I felt I had put across an important point, something we could use to base a decision on. Then one girl responded with an emphatic retort: “That assumes no life support; a premature baby of 20 weeks gestation can survive outside the womb with assistance from ventilators.”
Wow, that shot me down. Even the concept of when an unborn baby is independent of the mother is not well-defined. Everything is up for debate and scrutiny!
The subject then turned to the baby’s right to life. When does that out-weigh the mother’s right to choose. Is it ever right to terminate another life? This led to more questions: what if the baby has serious physical deformities? Would you prefer to have your life terminated than live with a very limited quality of life? This final section of the debate led nicely onto the subject of next week’s debate - euthanasia.
When the debate ended I really thought we would have come to an agreement - not an exact date of when abortion should be legal but at least our range would have narrowed as we ruled out the extremes. In actuality, those with extreme views had exactly the same opinion as when they entered the room.
Personally, my mind hadn’t so much changed as it had got more confused. The debate made me realise that a single date was impractical. It assumes a healthy mother, a healthy baby, an otherwise wanted child that would be born into a family environment. Not all of these conditions are a given. And when you consider the full spectrum of extenuating circumstances you can’t really apply a single rule to the decision of whether abortion is right or not.
The most important lesson my A-Level discussion group taught me was this: the debate about abortion cannot be answered yes or no, choice or life. The answer comes in the form of “when”.
Anyone who has spent more than 5 seconds thinking about abortion knows that the extremes are nonsense.
- No one would say a woman can’t use contraception.
- No one would say a woman can’t take a morning after pill.
- No one would say a woman can kill the baby when it’s half way down the birth canal.
- No one would say a woman can kill the baby the day after the birth.
Yet statements 2 and 3 are what Pro Life and Pro Choice demonstrators spout whenever they protest.
- The Pro Life lobby says abortion is always wrong. Even at day one.
- Pro Choice campaigners say the mother can always choose at any stage of the pregnancy.
Neither side are willing to consider “when” or enter into discussion. To them an extreme, categorical answer is the only answer. It breaks my heart to see human beings behaving in this bigoted way.
What I find most disturbing is how these groups get so offended by people who have different views to their own. They turn away from debating the issue because the thought of someone holding a different view makes them sick.