Discussing life without threats of death

The most contentious debate here and in the political arena at large usually center around the question of life with abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. The question remains - how to discuss the issue with honesty, but also with civility and understanding.

On the issue of abortion, the word "murder" is viewed as being a debate stopper. How do you debate or discuss with someone who views those on the opposite side as complicit in murder?

My belief is that you do it just like any other highly-charged issue oriented debate. You acknowledge the difference, seek to find common ground and use reason to exchange ideas. This can be extremely difficult for those on either side. (I know from personally experience.)

I try to understand the other side and I try to be civil during debates on abortion. But I also think that honesty is just as important.

I try not to use the word "murder" because it forces the debate away from the real issues and toward one dealing with semantics more than anything else. However when pushed to say what I believe about abortion, I cannot help but to be honest. It would not move the debate forward at all if I lied about my beliefs. You have to know and understand the positions of the other side in order to engage in a discussion.

When the discussion turns toward ESCR, the shoe usually goes toward the other foot. When pushed to be honest about their feelings, often supporters of ESCR claim that those opposed "don't care about sick people." That sentiment can be just as toxic to a debate as "murder" in the abortion debate.

I understand the thought process behind it. Supporters of ESCR believe that it will produce numerous cures for a myriad of sicknesses. Those of us who oppose it are needless interfering with progress that will save lives. That leads to frustration and the claims of "not caring."

Just as those who support abortion don't view it as murder, I don't view my opposition to ESCR as a lack of concern for those affected by diseases. My family is personally impacted by many of the sicknesses that ESCR advocates claim can be cured. My grandmother recently died with Alzheimer's. My mother is currently struggling with Parkinson's (they think), which is the same disease that drove Michael J. Fox to support ESCR. I do care about curing these disease, just not at the expense of human life.

So what is the best way to frame and discuss these issues without feeling like you should attack and have been attacked? How can those on either side of the debate remain both honest and civil, while understanding each other's viewpoint? I do believe it possible to discuss and debate these issues in a positive manner and do not share the belief that these issues must lead to violence from one or both sides. So, how do we do it?

Comments

[Louis]

We can't.

[Silver Hallide]

Aaron,

In all honesty the only way to engage in this sort of discussion is in terms where there are no absolutes from either side. When one starts from the position the ESCR or Abortion is Murder or it is not, that is in effect an absolute.

That does not contribute to a healthy or open discussion based upon merits of whether there is or is not any benefit to ESCR and ethical or moral issues surrounding it.

Unfortunately, what I see on both sides is a laden carpet bombing of rhetoric thrown around based upon absolute beliefs and positions. While people are entitled to have those positions, the cannot expect to have a conversation with others that disagree if they are so dug into their position that they are dealing in terms of absolutes.

As much as I would like to think that a discussion is possible, based upon the above I don't think we can. To do so would require people to relinquish their position of something being an absolute and deal within a realm of being open to the possibility that their belief (no matter how well grounded in their personal belief system) could be wrong. People do not like being proven wrong. That is human nature.

- S

[Aaron]

So you think the only time debate is possible is when both sides are completely open to being wrong? I'm not sure if I accept that.

[Silver Hallide]

So you think the only time debate is possible is when both sides are completely open to being wrong?

Debate is possible regardless, but to have the kind civil discourse you are seeking you need to check your absolutes at the door. Otherwise, you are having a debate the can and often does resort to personal attacks and labeling those as "apologetics."
It rapidly devolves into what I would call yelling and not listening to the other side.

I'm not sure if I accept that

Well, that is your right. However, for the sake of clarity and to the point about to discuss these things with honesty, civility, understanding, then being open to the possibility that you could be wrong is a pre-requisite for civil and non-personal attack derived discussion on a controversial topic.

I just have to point to the heated and very personal comments placed on this very blog to prove my point. People are working from positions of absolutes. How can anyone reasonably expect to have conversations that "discuss the issue with honesty, but also with civility and understanding" otherwise?

I mean honestly, the extremes here have demonstrated that working from absolute positions negates the ability of people to work from the center and acknowledge differences while still finding common ground.

I wish that was not the case, but I just have to look around the people that post to this blog and shake my head in conclude that absolutes kills a real opportunity for civil debate and discussion.

[Cineaste]

I NEVER take an absolute position! :) ROFL

[Silver Hallide]

See,

Cin just proved my point... LOL. Very nice Cin.

[seeker]

So what do we do with people who want to argue that blacks are not persons, and should be property? Be open to their logic, or condemn them as racist? I mean, I wouldn't want to be an absolutist or anything.

[Aaron]

One of the things in life I am certain of is that when I die I will find out that I was wrong on a good many things. That being said, I do not expect abortion to be one of them.

I am almost always open to someone convincing me, but I see (and have seen) no compelling evidence to change my mind.

I don't think absolutes kill a debate. I think they let the other person know where you are coming from. In this case, I would almost rather debate Cineaste because I know what his feelings are and where he is coming from than Silver because he never wants to be nailed down to a position and just wants to float "above it all." That can be more frustrating than holding fast to an actual position.

It's like I tend to have more respect for liberals that vote with their beliefs than moderates who make up their mind the week before an election, when the vast majority of elections provide very distinct choices.

I don't view absolutes as a hinderance to debate but a rather a framework in which to work and progress.

[Silver Hallide]

I would almost rather debate Cineaste because I know what his feelings are and where he is coming from than Silver because he never wants to be nailed down to a position and just wants to float "above it all."

Clearly you have not been paying attention my friend. I do have very solid positions on most issues, but I do not deal in terms of absolutes when discussing them here or with people. That is a non-starter. I approach things with an open mind. Maybe that makes me a "waffler" in your eyes, I don't know.

However, as Seeker will tell you, I have some very firm positions on social and economic issues and am not beholden to any political party (I am not a party man). I just don't let those positions get in the way of having a discussion...because ultimately I or the other person could be wrong. Discussions should not be combat, but that is exactly what we find here. That is life.

Subtle difference I am making there, but a good one. Maybe you have basically refuted your own premise in that civil, and reasoned discourse is possible with anyone by seeking out discussions with those you prefer to do battle with...not because you want a calm and civil conversation where a meeting of the minds can happen, but because you at least know where they are coming from even if the debate gets uncivil and very personal...the very antithesis of you post and premise here.

- Silver.

[Aaron]

I do believe you have very strong positions on many issues, but I have no idea where or why you stand on abortion. I know that about Cin.

It has nothing to do with party but with positions. For me I will support whatever party or politician that agrees with me on issues I deem important.

I don't think my (or Cineaste's) absolutes get in the way of a discussion. Can they lead to a more passionate and sometimes personal argument? Of course they can. But I think if you look back through the archives here, you will find very few times where I went after someone personally. I'm sure I have ever done that here - not saying I haven't - but I can't recall a time when I started calling names in a debate.

What you seem to be proposing is that everyone adopt some sort of "everything is up in the air" mentality about every issue we discuss. That seems ineffective and time wasting to me.

While I believe in some things absolutely, that does not mean I cannot absolutely be proven wrong or at least convinced that my position is not as strong as I thought it was. Through out my life, and especially since the beginning of this blog, I have changed some positions totally, weakened some and strengthened others. As you say, "that is life."

My absolutes allow me to let someone know where I am coming from and what they can say to appeal to me in a discussion. When someone comes across as not taking a position, you have no idea what their frame of mind is or how to discuss things with them.

On issues of abortion, ESCR, I know what Cineaste values and I can attempt to frame my arguments in terms that appeal to the absolutes and preferences that he holds to, whereas I don't know what you believe so I have no idea to engage you on the issue - other than to argue over the usefulness of holding an absolute.

Maybe it does have something to do with preferences as well though, as I would rather someone being "hot" than "icy" to me in a conversation. I would rather engage someone that is passionate about an issue instead of a cold, detached individual. But regardless I think civil discussions can be had with either type of person.

Sometimes discussions tend to get combative here, but I think if you look at the specific instances it has more to do with personality than with absolutes on positions. Those like Louis, Seeker, Sam and Cineastes tend to have a more aggressive personality (at least online) that on occasion on some issues deteriorates into name-calling or at least very passionate debates/arguments. Whereas those like you, Stewart or myself tend to be less aggressive and more "make the peace" type people (online), we usually avoid going down that path but we have our own different weaknesses in these discussions.

I get more aggressive on some issues (especially abortion), but my goal is not do "do battle" but do have a civil (if not calm) discussion. I don't believe that calm is automatically equated to good or effective in terms of discussion. We can be calm and never really say anything that would rile the other person up, but then we would also not be honest and forthright about our beliefs. The whole conversation would be a lie based on the assumption that we made real progress if everybody thinks everybody else is "nice."

Despite my differences here with just about everyone (seeker and I disagree on some things), I find everyone here to be "nice" and someone I would enjoy hanging out with - even after our passionate disagreements.

Perhaps it has more to do with the way you view things than with how it is impossible to have absolutes in a discussion. Maybe you don't believe it possible to be friends with someone you disagree with, though I don't think that to be the case since I believe you and seeker are friends outside of the blogworld. Are you and seeker not able to have conversations about issues that you disagree passionately about and where at least one of you acknowledges that he believes in absolutes about the issue?