How Not to Have a (Political) Conversation about Abortion

Michael F. Mascolo, Ph.D.

Jan 2

By Michael F. Mascolo, Ph.D.

Abortion is one of our most contentious issues. What is the best way to discuss this issue? When we discuss abortion, the conversation typically turns into a debate. One person puts for a position; the other agrees or disagrees. Parties challenge each other’s views.

This is the way we typically address issues like abortion. However, is it the best way?

Here is an example of a debate on abortion[i]. It was conducted by two professors from Cerrito College.

	REECE: Victor, why are you pro-life? Why in the world are you pro-life?
	OBASOHAN: Professor Reece, one of the responsibilities of government is to protect life. This country cannot be in the business of taking a life.
	REECE: Have you ever heard of this concept called “liberty,” called “choice”? This is a core issue in American politics. And whenever you talk about that pro-life stuff, it’s code for: “Tell women what to do in the United States.” Women aren’t going to take that anymore.
	OBASOHAN: Professor Reece, I love women. I have one. I have one as a wife, and I have a daughter, too.
	REECE: Why would you want to take choice away from them?
	OBASOHAN: So don’t give me the idea about women. This is committing murder; this is taking a life. When a government of a society stands by for some of its citizens, men or women, to engage in taking the life of the unborn, it’s clearly…
	REECE: It’s not clear where this whole life starts and ends in pregnancy.
	OBASOHAN: It’s not? After about a month, there’s a baby in there.
	REECE: That’s not clear. That’s not clear.
	OBASOHAN: Who says it’s not clear?
	REECE: The scientific community.
	OBASOHAN: It takes nine months to have a baby.
	REECE: That’s right. We say at nine months, you’re not allowed to have an abortion. We say in the last two trimesters, you’re not allowed to have an abortion. But that first trimester, Roe v. Wade says that choice prevails.
	OBASOHAN: Are you suggesting that a government should be in the business of encouraging women to take a life?

Sound familiar? This is, of course, a good example of how not to have a discussion about abortion. What’s happened here? Reece and Obasohan go back and forth, attacking and defending. What’s happened here? The debaters may have scored points with the people who already agree with them. But is the question of abortion any closer to being resolved? Not in the least.

How could it be? The debaters are not there to solve a problem — they are there to win. Let’s look at the debate again, A debate is a zero-sum game. I can only win if you lose. I can only gain ground if you lose ground. It’s me against you. Partners do whatever they have to do to beat the other party.

In this (and virtually any) debate, each partner uses a series of strategic moves intended to advance his own position and discredit the other’s. Let’s look at the debate again. This time, let’s examine how the debaters engage – or fail to engage each other – as they try to out maneuver each other.

The table shows the initial portion of a debate between two scholars about the issue of abortion. The debate appears on the left; the right-hand column of the table below shows how they try to out-maneuver one other:

THE DEBATE	STRATEGIC MOVES
REECE: Victor, why are you pro-life? Why in the world are you pro-life?	*R discredits O.* The phrase “Why ‘in the world’” depicts O as out of touch, crazy or stupid.
OBASOHAN: Professor Reece, one of the responsibilities of government is to protect life. This country cannot be in the business of taking a life.	*O expresses a position.* The responsibility of the government to protect life is O’s political position on the issue.
REECE: Have you ever heard of this concept called “liberty,” called “choice”? This is a core issue in American politics. And whenever you talk about that pro-life stuff, it’s code for: “Tell women what to do in the United States.” Women aren’t going to take that anymore.	*R is dismissive.* R’s use of “Have you ever heard” casts O as ignorant, implicitly demeaning his position. *R depicts O as dishonest.* “it’s code for” suggests that O is being manipulative. *R distorts O’s position.* When R says that O’ “Tell[s] women what to do”, he changes O’s statement to make it sound insulting to women
OBASOHAN: Professor Reece, I love women. I have one. I have one as a wife, and I have a daughter, too.	*O defends himself.* O suggests that loving his wife and daughter suggests that he is not against women.
REECE: Why would you want to take choice away from them?	*R distorts O’s position.* R casts O in the position of “wanting to take choice away from women”.
OBASOHAN: So don’t give me the idea about women. This is committing murder; this is taking a life. When a government of a society stands by for some of its citizens, men or women, to engage in taking the life of the unborn, it’s clearly…	*O dismisses R’s question.* “Don’t give me the idea about women” dismisses R’s question as illegitimate. *O defends himself and counter attacks.* In saying, “This is committing murder”, O defends his position and attack’s R’s statement about choice.
REECE: It’s not clear where this whole life starts and ends in pregnancy.	O redirects the discussion. O picks up on the term “unborn” to redirect the discussion to the question of when the fetus becomes a person.
OBASOHAN: It’s not? After about a month, there’s a baby in there.	O refutes R’s statement and counter attacks. O disputes R’s claim of uncertainty about when “life” begins.
REECE: That’s not clear. That’s not clear.	*R refutes O’s statement.*
OBASOHAN: Who says it’s not clear?	*O calls for justification.* O asks R to justify his assertion.
REECE: The scientific community.	*R invokes science as a form of authority.* O justifies his assertion through an appeal to the consensus of science.
OBASOHAN: It takes nine months to have a baby.	*O mocks R’s statement.* O seems to use sarcasm “it takes nine months…” to discredit R’s assertion.
REECE: That’s right. We say at nine months, you’re not allowed to have an abortion. We say in the last two trimesters, you’re not allowed to have an abortion. But that first trimester, Roe v. Wade says that choice prevails.	*R seeks to show the reasonableness of his argument.* R indicates that even though it takes nine months for gestation, only a part of that period is relevant to the abortion issue.
OBASOHAN: Are you suggesting that a government should be in the business of encouraging women to take a life?	*O distorts R’s position.* O distorts R’s position by implying that, to R, abortion is “taking a life”. If so, then R would be arguing that the government encourages murder

What do we see as we move through this debate? We see:

The discussion involves an exchange of positions – already existing viewpoints on an issue – rather than seeking ways to solve the problems being raised
Neither party seeks to genuinely understand the other’s position; they listen not with an intention to solve a problem, but instead to identify flaws in the other person’s position
The speakers tend to intentionally characterize or interpret – and thus distort — each other’s positions in ways are self-serving
Although they may take a joking stance, the speakers use mocking, sarcastic language to discredit each other’s position

Debates are not typically about solving problems. Instead, they tend to be about ego. They are about winning and losing. Neither partner wants to lose. To lose is to appear weak. To lose is to be humiliated. Losing implies a loss of identity.

This is why debates are typically not effective ways discuss political issues. Nonetheless, debate is the primary process by which we make decisions about difficult political issues. This is so not only at the level of government, but also when ordinary discussions turn to political issues.

If the conversation is about me versus you, there is no room for finding shared ways to solve a problem. In fact, in debates, the problems that people are trying to solve are typically not even stated. In the abortion debate, people debate whether abortion is or is not permissible, but they rarely identity the problems that permitting or restricting abortion are intended to solve.

From Debate to Problem-Solving

The key to have a constructive discussion about political issues is counter intuitive. It is to do exactly the opposite of what we are most inclined to do, namely debate. The key to a constructive political discussion is to stop trying to debate, convince or persuade your interlocutor. Stop trying to use logic, reason and rationality to convince your partner that you are right and they are wrong. When was the last time you changed your position on an issue as a result of a debate? When was the last time your debate partner said, “You’re right! What was I thinking?”

Instead of debating positions on an issue, turn the “political discussion” into a joint endeavor of problem-solving. That is, stop thinking of political conflict as a battle and start thinking of it as a form of problem-solving. Debates are typically contests over who has the best solution to a problem; however, in debates, the partners tend to debate solutions to problems that have not even been stated.

The questions become: How can we identify the problems that we are trying to solve in contentious political discussions? How can we work together to solve those problems – that is, to solve the problems you are trying to solve, the problems I am trying to solve, and the problems we are trying to solve.

I want to suggest that our everyday ways of dealing with political issues – adversarial debates –are not the most effective way address political problems. I want to suggest that principles and practices of conflict resolution provide ways to work through political problems. In what follows, I will describe two broad ways of engaging in political conversations that can actually solve problems. These include (a) collaborative problem-solving, in which parties work together to find ways meet the needs and interests of diverse parties to a conflict and (b) dialectical problem-solving, which addresses problems raised by clashes in ideologies. I will illustrate these approaches to political conflict using the example of abortion.

Both of these forms of political engagement rely upon the capacity to connect to the humanity of one’s partner – even partners with whom we deeply disagree. The article How to Have a Political Conversation about Abortion I: Lead with Compassion explores this issue in the context of discussions about abortion.

[i] https://wps.ablongman.com/long_longman_lpcerritos_4/38/9941/2545087.cw/content/index.html