Just about every hot-button issue has supporters and detractors who must act with the utmost professionalism to keep their credibility while presenting their arguments for their cause. But there are two subjects that I’ve seen in the past 20 or so years that seem to be immune to this, and what we’re left with is watching ‘respected’ people resort to illogical arguments and name-calling, and they are still applauded by a brainwashed public for their efforts.
No matter what happens in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, whether it is a blockade, another Gaza invasion, or a fence, the debate seems to always boil down to the same question. Does Israel have the right to exist? If the answer is no, the discussion is essentially over. There will be no agreement. However, answering no won’t keep the dialogue going, and no one wants to cave in and declare defeat, right? Oftentimes the reaction to this question is challenged as being unfair, or dodged completely, because few from the opposition wants to say yes and declare Israel’s legitimacy. This is where the debate often turns silly. For example, the controversy with the Turkish ‘relief’ ship and the deaths that followed led to renewed calls for an end to Israel’s Gaza blockade. Highly educated and respected people made this argument. The problem here is the very logic behind their argument is so backward that it should instantly destroy any credibility they ever had (yet they’re applauded by an equally delusional audience). They’re basically saying that Israel should unilaterally stop their security measures (perhaps ‘security’ is the debated word, here)… because… because… the people of Gaza deserve food, medicine, building materials, and weapons to attack Israel. I’m not quite clear on the position of those who wish to debate these points whether it’s okay that rockets and bombs are brought into Gaza and given to Hamas so they can attack Israelis. Not acknowledging these key points would earn a demerit in a Debate 101 course.
At the same time, when Palestinians complain that another hilltop in the West Bank is getting a new Israeli settlement, defenders of such actions are saying that Palestine has no right to exist. I’ll even buy the land-grab-to-later-trade-for-peace strategy, but that’s not really why it’s happening. And this is when the far-right Israelis put their foot in their mouths.
If you thought the Israeli-Palestinian conflict debate spawns a lot of relatively respected pundits to get away with ridiculous arguments, the abortion debate is Ground Zero for idiots to voice their opinions, from both sides of the spectrum. Even worse, people are so close-minded on this topic that they applaud the most immature and nonsensical of commentators.
Let’s start with the name-calling. First, the terms ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’ are political rhetoric used to paint a relatively positive name of the cause. In fact, ‘pro-pro’ could work with other debates, as well, though there likely aren’t other any topics in such desperate need of such labels to mask their true name. The word ‘choice’ is not synonymous with abortion rights and if anyone thinks it is, that just shows how embedded into their heads they made it. ‘Choice’ should refer to all real choices (but for the sake of debate, all controversial choices involving your body or life). I have the CHOICE to have an abortion, to do drugs, to commit suicide, to drink while pregnant (my body my choice). If you want to call yourself ‘pro-choice’ and really mean it, you pretty much need to believe in all of those causes. Otherwise, you hijacked the word. The same goes for ‘pro-life.’ Anyone who calls themselves ‘pro-life’ but is against abortion and for the death penalty has hijacked the word ‘life’ for their convenience. So, the proper terms for this debate are ‘abortion rights advocates’ and ‘antiaborion advocates.’ Not as pretty as pro-life and pro-choice. But at least they’re accurate labels. And anyone who uses the term ‘anti-choice’ to refer to an antiabortion advocate should automatically lose all credibility in the eyes of anyone with any common sense and isn’t blinded by the rhetoric that has ingrained itself into way too many heads these days. It’s as ignorant as someone saying ‘anti-life,’ a term that gets far fewer Google results than the just as ridiculous and inaccurate ‘anti-choice.’
Enough with the semantics. Name calling in this debate, which I’ve described above, has become an accepted part of our culture, even to the point that ‘unbiased’ journalists have been caught using the terms in news articles (I once saw a Newsweek author write ‘anti-choice protesters’ to describe a scene in a news story, which is a newsroom no-no). Even if either side was known as the accurate ‘abortion rights advocate’ and ‘antiabortion advocate,’ this debate is far from civil, and even bumper stickers scream ignorance. Anyone who believes they are being clever when they spout the phrase “if you’re against abortion then don’t have one” obviously has no understanding of the antiabortion movement. It would be like saying ‘if you’re against whaling, then don’t kill a whale,’ or ‘if you’re against murder, then don’t kill anyone.’ I think you get the point. Another oldie but goodie in the files of abortion rights advocates is to say that if abortion were outlawed, then it would lead to back-alley, aka ‘unsafe’ abortions. What they fail to acknowledge is that the antiabortion folks are against that, too. They’re not trying to outlaw abortion to drive more women to use coathangers. Sure, that would be an unfortunate side effect to a repeal of Roe vs. Wade but in no way would ever hinder their determination to outlaw it. It’s similar to painful, bloody suicides happening due to the illegality of legalized doctor-assisted suicide. Where are the anti-razorblade/noose/pill signs and marches around the Capitol for that?
There is virtually no angle of the abortion debate that hasn’t been argued a million times over, though the tactics in which the anti-abortion advocates use to fight legalized abortion have changed. Lobbying to make abortion illegal is one thing, but taking more immediate actions to reduce abortions often rubs the opposition the wrong way. That’s when the abortion rights advocates go on the defensive, name call, scream ‘unfair,’ or collectively lump all anti-abortion advocates together when one person murders a doctor or bombs a clinic. These are expected responses in defense of their cause, but again, the name-calling and eye-poking are too often an accepted and respected debate tactic.
The abortion debate also has a grab bag of ‘gotcha’ questions that each side asks the other, and the other one often dodges. “Should abortion be illegal even when the woman’s life is at stake?” “Should abortion be illegal in the case of rape?” (you’ll still hear some yes answers for that since ‘murder is murder.’) “If the baby can survive outside the womb then why should it be okay to abort?” (the late-term abortion debate). My favorite that no one can answer: “If abortion is okay, then why is Fetal Alcohol Syndrome not okay?” These are all questions that should make either side think about the consistency in their views, but too many people are too close-minded to even consider that there may be a hole in their argument. And that is why there will never be a consensus in the abortion debate.
No matter how passionate you are about either of these issues, and no matter which side you are on, don’t be drawn into what has become accepted debate tactics when they’re nothing more than immature arguments that wouldn’t hold up in less controversial issues.