Here is the conclusion of my interview with Stephen Wagner concerning his book, Common Ground Without Compromise: 25 Questions to Create Dialogue on Abortion. Though the book is available on Amazon, we encourage you to support Steve's work at Stand to Reason by ordering through their website. Part 1 can be read here. |  |
How has the media affected our perception of abortion in
The media has led us to believe that most people are pro-choice. In my experience, most people are much more nuanced than that. Many see themselves as not fitting into either the pro-choice or pro-life camps. If forced by an opinion poll, they’ll choose, but if given the chance to explain, they are conflicted. Others just haven’t thought much about abortion and many are just confused.
In addition, the media gives us the sense that we’re always discussing abortion. That’s the most detrimental thing, because I think it turns people off to creating real, productive dialogue. One might say, “If everyone’s always discussing it, why do I need to weigh in? Aren’t people tired of the topic?” Some people are tired of the topic. But not because we’ve really done it justice.
I think the media treatment of abortion has also led people to believe that the abortion debate is dominated by angry activists. Although these activists may be the most vocal and the most concerned, the most productive abortion debate happens around dinner tables, on college campuses, and at the coffee house. Abortion isn’t just a theoretical issue people debate. It’s about real decisions people are making today. And those decisions are either well-informed or poorly-informed. If we create a better dialogue as a culture, I think the benefit is women and men making better decisions about abortion.
 | One of your final chapters offers questions for pro-choice advocates to ask
pro-lifers. You claim "they encourage us to examine our inner attitudes
and external personas." (p100) What is it about the typical pro-life
attitude that needs to be confronted?
Pro-life activists frequently make claims they can’t defend and lack tact in their discussion of pro-choice concerns. Chapter 11 focuses on common pro-choice concerns and asks, aren’t these concerns “human” concerns? Can’t we agree with the pro-choice advocate on her concern for the poor and the difficult circumstances of unplanned pregnancy? |
Pro-choice advocates may see much of the book as coming from a pro-life perspective (it’s inevitable, since I am pro-life). I attempted in this chapter to adopt the pro-choice perspective and look critically at pro-life arguments and tactics through pro-choice eyes. I do this as a matter of course in my conversations, so it was a natural component to include in a book about trying to agree with the other side.
At Stand to Reason's website you've provided study guides for both pro-choice and pro-life advocates to help them clarify the arguments for their position. Doesn't helping pro-choice advocates improve their arguments work against the pro-life cause?
The study guides encourage both sides first to clarify their own arguments and then to look at the best arguments on the other side. This is the healthiest way to engage in dialogue about our beliefs with ourselves and with others. So, I see both study guides as a service to both pro-choice and pro-life advocates to help them think more clearly. I don’t see how helping pro-choice advocates think more clearly can possibly harm the pro-life cause. It’s just goodwill to encourage them to look at their own position first. Perhaps the fact that I’m tired of hearing arguments like “you’re a man, so shut up” also motivates me but I genuinely want to help the pro-choice advocate think more deeply about their position.
I’m not afraid of pro-choice arguments. The truth about abortion and the unborn will win the day, if it’s looked at carefully. So, I say, evaluate the strongest reasons on both sides of the debate. There’s no danger in that. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates should do this. Far from harming the pro-life cause, these guides get people thinking critically about their beliefs.
I suppose it’s possible that some pro-choice advocates will become more convinced of their beliefs, because they find in the guide intellectually sophisticated ways of expressing those beliefs. But if they’re truly open to reconsidering their pro-choice position, they’ll honestly look also at the best arguments for the pro-life position, as I’ve suggested in the guide. Then it’s the pro-life community’s responsibility to make sure our arguments are truly persuasive. And if our best arguments don’t persuade, they might not be very good after all. Yet, our arguments are very good and persuasive…to the open heart.
Underneath it all, there’s more here than the arguments. When pro-choice advocates reject our best arguments, I suspect it’s the emotional and spiritual aspects of the person that are making it difficult for them to change their minds. Seeking common ground in the conversation gives more opportunity for those emotional and spiritual elements to breathe and gives each of us space to attend to them.
