I was reading this wonderful paper on the importance of maintaining dialogue in the abortion debate (and of course other debates). I was struck by the idea that arguments/debates are sometimes a reflection of where we are in life. So the question of how to maintain dialogue is a difficult one, especially when most people change by increments, rather than large sudden changes. The positions that some hold follow years of experiences and knowledge acquisition, right or wrong. On the other side of the spectrum, there are those who possess little knowledge or experience. So, in a sense, advocating for your position in a public manner becomes difficult. Who is your target audience? How well versed are they in the arguments? How well versed are you?
The other point that struck me was that we must have charity towards the other, whilst ensuring that we don’t fall into relativism. Ultimately, as the paper points out, we must listen, and do so honestly, so that we can be receptive not only to the other, but also to the truth, which we are ultimately trying to attain.
A further difficulty lies in desire and truth. What exactly are we debating for? My perspective is that truth is something fundamental which goes beyond shallow desires. However, perhaps we could say that in our (hopefully) ultimate destination, desire will in fact match truth. Is it, then, even possible to debate with someone whose primary goal is a desire fulfillment which is at odds with truth? How do we even discern or prove when desire is at odds with truth?
The authors of the papers seek to combat this by returning to base principles that are perhaps building blocks for what eventually becomes our opinions, and in this case, our abortion opinions. Understanding the Catholic position then, requires not only a contemporary understanding of affairs, but a long chain of philosophy and history. We can first treasure the human from conception using reason, and then untangle the choices that lead to abortion through exploring love and freedom.
It’s a great paper for anyone working hard to change minds in the debate, as the method of communication is just as important as the content of the communication.
From a personal perspective, it has helped me to understand that debating from the endpoints is perhaps futile when the base points are not very well understood, and that we must have charity for others in understanding that we exist on a spectrum of experiences. In understanding the other’s experiences better, we may find a better position to help them. It also helps me see that I am being uncharitable in perhaps being a little heavy handed in discussion of what I feel is the truth, alienating perhaps, where I should instead be persuading.
