This piece is going to serve as a sort of spiritual successor to my Afghanistan piece from back in October 2021 (thoughts on pulling out), which I’m going to name the “bargument series” as its intent is to prepare you for the eventual argument…in a bar. In that piece I pre-structured some debate points and flow. I’ll quickly repeat some of my closing commentary: is a good reminder that the battle of ideas is won by those who think critically and prepare. It is not solely ideological. And as good as it feels to win an argument, it feels much better to know that you are on the right side of history. So doing the work and being able to articulate it is important. In that spirit, here’s my guide to the ongoing Roe debate.
I think it’s important to first address the shortcomings of the liberal side of the debate, and then move on to the conservative stance and review it’s unproductive position and capture those persuadable minds in the audience.
Let’s start with the liberal perspective.
To state the obvious – this is a really complex question. It’s a moral issue that extends beyond what science can “prove” in any acceptable way – and as a results there are numerous answers that reflect a spectrum of opinions, but let’s focus on a the common one. From the liberal perspective, I see people framing this as a “women’s right to choose” issue. With this framing it can be implied that there’s a no-holds-bar view on abortion; it should be available in all circumstances without restriction. I understand this is not every liberal’s stance – but it is a common one. And importantly – when you position it exclusively as a “women’s right to choose” issue it is the logical conclusion. But this is not where all liberals sit on the issue, of the 61% of U.S. Adults who say abortion should be legal in ”most” or “all” cases – only 31% (or <20% of the total survey population) have this no-holds bar view. The reason?
It’s because most Americans do not view this as a purely private matter between a woman and a doctor. Right or wrong. I’m just saying that’s the perception. To quote Josh Barro:
[M]ost Americans see a fetus as a morally relevant entity with interests that the state should acknowledge and, in some instances, protect through restrictions on abortion.
Again, we’re talking about perception here, it’s not to say that any one view point is wrong. It’s to identify that some arguments are not resonating with a large part of the electorate. As we quickly approach a situation in which national legislation will be needed to secured abortion access across the country I believe it’s important to determine an attainable policy prescription and fight for that.
What might an attainable policy prescription look like? To be quite honest, I don’t know — and that being a man I probably shouldn’t have a say. What some Pro-Choice advocates point towards is the Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy Act of 2018 which made abortion legal in the Republic of Ireland. This served as a modern day legislative victory in a very religious nation — but even that came with notable restrictions. Per Matt Yglesias abortion is legal when:
Pregnancy less than 12-weeks old (1st trimester)
When two doctors certify in good faith that the fetus is likely to die before or within 28 days of birth
When two doctors certify that continuing the pregnancy poses a serious risk to the life or health of the mother
When one doctor certifies that there is an emergency threat to the life or health of the mother requiring immediate action
This is not the no-holds bar kind of legalization that the left-most advocates are looking for, but it did secure the right for a whole country. I am not advocating for any solution, but I think this is worth considering.
From a debating perspective I will once again reference the West Wing (cheugy, I know), but this time Democratic-Candidate Matt Santos and his discussion with Planned Parenthood representative, Becca (emphasis mine):
SANTOS What we need to make clear is that we're not hostile to people who are anti-abortion.
BECCA Pro-choice means anyone can do what they want.
SANTOS Yeah, but it shouldn't mean that we're proud of whatever they choose. Maybe all this chest-beating is the reason the right can get away with that ad; the reason why a leader of my church can exile me for not trying to impose my religion on the rest of the country, and we're surprised that there are people out there who think we're for unlimited abortion. That there are actually voters, who are pro-choice, that think that we're too extreme.
BECCA Political posturing aside, precisely what limits are you for?
SANTOS Do you support abortion to support the sex of the baby?
BECCA Of course not.
SANTOS How about after an IQ test?
BECCA No.
SANTOS Well, then you support limits on abortion yourself. Isn't it all a matter of degrees after that? Who are you, who are any of us, to say where someone should draw the line for themselves?
BECCA I'd like to know what you're saying tonight.
SANTOS That abortion is a tragedy. That it should be legal, it should be safe; it should be a lot rarer than it is now. If you have a problem with that, then endorse whoever you want.
The point is – abortion is not a black and white issue in this country. Most people are in the middle, see below where 63% of respondents are legal or illegal in most cases – the middle dominates the country even if the debate doesn’t reflect that. I think that the goal for those advocating for safe, and legal access to abortion is to appeal to that middle. This is not an issue you’re going to force on hardcore-religious types, but if you can convince someone that your position is the middle-ground, then you’ve won. This isn’t a debate for the fringe of America – but it’s center.
But what about the conservative view?
On the other end of the spectrum there’s the “Abortion is murder” view where life begins at conception and any action taken to prevent a completion of that birth is seen as killing that (in their view) life. This is pretty much the conservative view – they may argue that life begins at X-Week or Y-Week, but the view is that an embryo or a fetus is a living entity with rights that supersede those of the mother in any situation. This is a minority opinion in the United States with only 37% of adults have a net illegal opinion (the “net” terminology reflects the exceptions part of the discussion).
I assume most reading my pieces are not in this second camp, but that’s who you might end up debating against so it’s important to identify some common pitfalls and lapses in logic. A common strategy is to utilize the Ben Shapiro classic, the snuck premise. This is where a debater might introduce the exact point of contention as a given – like calling abortion: “killing babies” – whereby if you don’t call it out, you’ve agreed (implicitly) that we are in fact talking about “babies”, and that implies murder, etc… That’s a line you need to watch out for – because if you let it slip by you’re going to give up too much ground. I think the personhood of the fetus/baby is where most arguments will come to ahead with someone who holds pro-life beliefs. Which leads to the actual debate in my opinion, what’s the goal of outlawing it?
What is the goal of outlawing abortion?
Because the repealing of 50 years of precedent is occurring – we’re in effect banning abortions in a material amount of states. What’s the goal? Is it to limit abortions? Reduce deaths? Preserve life? Ask them what they’re solving for, because most people have some level of exception (rape, incest, life of the mother) – so what objective is their policy prescription trying to achieve is important to coming to the root of the disagreement.
I think commonly people will say that they’re trying to reduce abortions – and given we’ve had periods of illegality in the world that seems like a datapoint we can analyze. And sure enough – a 2001 study from the European Journal of Public Health concluded that decriminalization had “no observed effect on abortion trends” in samples from England and Wales, The Netherlands, and Spain.
To be clear – this is one study that I frankly picked to support what I believe – but this isn’t the only piece of supporting evidence. For example, The Guttmacher Institute cites that the abortion rate in countries that prohibit abortion all together us ~37 per 1,000 people versus ~34 per 1,000 in countries what broadly allow for abortion.
So the legality of abortion doesn’t seem to have a material impact on the number of operations – merely the safety of those operations and who gets punished for them. Dig in – ask them for support on how diminishing access to legal abortions is supposed to reduce operations.
/Sidepoint/ If you want to make a really “dunk-on-them-point” maybe try and parallel their beliefs to how “making guns illegal won’t stop criminals for getting them” point. Sure – it’s a little different – but when debating in front of others a quick rhetorical quip can punch above its weight.
It’s unlikely that they’ll be able to rattle something off — and in any case you had evidence, too. It’s at this point where you search for common ground — look like the healer (because you are). I’d suggest offering the off-ramp of promoting and increasing sexual education across the country. If we want to stop abortions we should start at the root — unplanned pregnancies. There are piles of research that support this view: Nina Khodakarami, David Paton, Stephen Bullivant, and Juan Soto, and Pamela Kohler.
The lack of sexual education in our country is horrifying — and if their goal is really to prevent abortions they should be yelling from the mountain tops about this issue.
As usual — the lack of outrage about the relevant items is incredibly telling. I wouldn’t bring this up — but the debate highlights a concerning fascination with the punishment of women over promotion of a solution to what they deem (in their words) a travesty of human life. It adds to my confidence that this is the right position in the long arc of history — and hopefully it can provide you with some thoughts in your next bargument after a few Miller Lites.