Is sincerity enough? How to have a fair debate

We admire principled people. Or at least, we think we do. If we think about it, the people we really admire are those who have the principles that we believe to be true, or beneficial, or at least relatively harmless.

After all, Stalin had principles. Hitler had principles. The Taleban have principles. The problem is not so much a lack of principles, as adherence to the wrong principles. One of the more daft suggestions heard in our age of soft heads and hard hearts is that as long as we are “sincere”, we are probably OK. But regarding sincerity as a stand-alone virtue in and of itself is highly dangerous.

You can be sincerely wrong. I may sincerely believe that I have a duty to kill every left-handed person I meet. That may be one of my “core principles”. Does that mean that everyone is duty bound to accommodate me, and not object to my principles for fear of hurting my feelings? Not at all: on the contrary, it is vitally important that someone corrects me. It is no use to nod sympathetically and congratulate me on my sincerity.

One of the most common avenues of attack on LIFE and our work is the implication that we are not really genuine or honest in the arguments we put forward. It is suggested that there is some kind of ulterior motive behind opposition to abortion. The various sins of which we are accused generally include hatred of women, religious fanaticism, dislike of sex, as well as scientific and philosophical ignorance (to name but a few).

It does not seem to enter the critics’ heads that a perfectly reasonable, sane person, in full possession of the facts and after long and thoughtful consideration, might come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong. Not because of their religious beliefs, or because they think sex is bad, or because they want to punish women, but because they genuinely believe that abortion is not a right or just act. In other words, people’s pro-life views are sincerely held.

Now, as we have been discussing, that is by no means a guarantee that we are right. However, it does demand that someone who wishes to persuade us that we are wrong, or to criticise our position, go about this endeavour in the right way. There is an old convention about debating that we ought to engage with our opponent’s strongest arguments, rather than his weakest (any fool can demolish a weak argument).

Generally, people hold beliefs for specific reasons. If we want to change their mind, then we have to address those reasons. If A believes that abortion is wrong because the unborn child is fully human, then no amount of talk from B about women’s control over their bodies is going to change their mind, because for A, this feminist angle is just not relevant information. B might, on the other hand, get somewhere by suggesting to A that the unborn child is not fully human.

You might think that this is pretty simple stuff. But it is still very unusual to read pro-abortion articles that progress beyond name-calling and straw man arguments. Of course in any heated debate there will be a certain amount of robust back-and-forth, hurt feelings, bruised pride and so on. At some point, however, we have to get beyond the rough stuff and try and actually make some real arguments.