Accepting that a woman, who was raped and has complications with her pregnancy that would mean that she would die if there was no abortion, is a long way from accepting that every pregnant woman in a late stage pregnancy can just decide to have an abortion.
When you start talking rationally about the shade of gray of different laws it also becomes easier to have a rational discourse about the extremes.
One exemption to anti-abortion views I’ve seen expressed almost universally among pro-lifers is that abortion is okay if the mother’s life is at risk(because at that point, abortion isn’t murder, any more than an operation that kills one Siamese twin to save the other is). A lot of people try to start blocking out other exemptions for semi-random reasons, mostly because of the hemisphere fallacy, but the arguments are usually the sort of incoherent nonsense you only hear from politicians.
That’s why it makes sense to give them multiple laws that regulate abortion and ask them to rank them instead of asking them for their ideal abortion law.
They will have to give you reasons about why they prefer one exception over another even if they would reject both exceptions in a perfect world. That usually requires them to reason in a way that’s more than just reiterating talking points.
Agreed, that seems like a good approach to teasing out details of a stance. (Most real people will just ignore you in various ways, of course, but if you can make them sit still long enough it’s viable)
If you tell people that they are doing things wrong, they usually dont ignore you but get emotional about what you are saying.
If people just ignore you, maybe you are arguing against straw mans or otherwise not addressing the real reasons of why they acted the way they did in the past.
Accepting that a woman, who was raped and has complications with her pregnancy that would mean that she would die if there was no abortion, is a long way from accepting that every pregnant woman in a late stage pregnancy can just decide to have an abortion.
When you start talking rationally about the shade of gray of different laws it also becomes easier to have a rational discourse about the extremes.
One exemption to anti-abortion views I’ve seen expressed almost universally among pro-lifers is that abortion is okay if the mother’s life is at risk(because at that point, abortion isn’t murder, any more than an operation that kills one Siamese twin to save the other is). A lot of people try to start blocking out other exemptions for semi-random reasons, mostly because of the hemisphere fallacy, but the arguments are usually the sort of incoherent nonsense you only hear from politicians.
That’s why it makes sense to give them multiple laws that regulate abortion and ask them to rank them instead of asking them for their ideal abortion law.
They will have to give you reasons about why they prefer one exception over another even if they would reject both exceptions in a perfect world. That usually requires them to reason in a way that’s more than just reiterating talking points.
Agreed, that seems like a good approach to teasing out details of a stance. (Most real people will just ignore you in various ways, of course, but if you can make them sit still long enough it’s viable)
If you tell people that they are doing things wrong, they usually dont ignore you but get emotional about what you are saying.
If people just ignore you, maybe you are arguing against straw mans or otherwise not addressing the real reasons of why they acted the way they did in the past.