We had our discussion this Thursday about polarizing issues. Rather than reporting on the discussions themselves, here are my thoughts from the points raised in the discussion.

First and foremost, we have to recognize that we get drawn to sensational and exceptional extreme scenarios.  Media headline writers know this and use it to full advantage to draw eyeballs to their publications.  While it draws our attentions, these extremes positions are rare and do not help with the majority of the situations which tends to be between the extremes.

Propaganda uses the same technique.  Name calling, mockery, parody anchors our mind with images and take advantage of our emotional self for fast simple decisions without bothering to look at the nuanced data that do not all support these decisions.

Both sides of the argument feels compelled to resort to the same tactics, using more fire power from seasoned campaign specialist tasked with winning the battle.

It is like a mudslinging fest in an election. Each candidate focuses on winning the election at all costs.  Someone is bound to win the battle at election day but the penalty is long term voter apathy and distrust of the system. The war for citizenship and involvement loses every time there is such an election.

The opposing sides can’t help themselves but to demonize their opponents.

This is hardly the original intent of the democratic parliamentary system and our concept of free society and free speech.

We need to change the way we discuss issues in a democracy so that we preserve the essence of constructive dissent, ability to accommodate other points of view, and learn from those who disagree with us.

Let the birth of a better idea take preference to winning an argument.

There are also more than two sides to an issue.

Our reductionist training in analysis wants to boil down every issue to a for or against decision when the world is much more complex than that. Reducing complex situations associated with polarizing issues such as abortion to a simple decision misses the context of the situation.  It is the reason why both sides of the debate are able to come up with specific narrow examples to support their extreme views.

We need to move away from the debate format that push towards a winning and losing side and adopt a discussion format to search for a solution that encompass more of the consideration and satisfy more parties concerned if not all.

Compromise to handle the reality of the situation.

This flies in the face of a life of ideals and principled existence.

Do we not teach our children to always be good, never lie, ….etc?

The fundamentalist continues to claim that principles or words from a holy book cannot be compromised and has to be taken literally……all the time.

It is an idealistic stance that is constantly tested by reality.

It is easy to see that anytime there is more than one rule or principle, there will inevitably come a situation of conflict where one of the rules will have to be broken.

When the Nazi police knock on your door looking for Jews hiding in your cellar, you will either have to lie or let innocent people be hurt. Rules come with exceptions.

So how do we address the different positions in the abortion issue?

Rather than looking at the preservation of freedom on one side and the sanctity of life on the other, maybe we should look at the bigger picture including other parties involved.

Instead of the mother’s freedom to choose, should the fetus, the father, the society have some consideration?

Instead of insisting on life starting at conception, should we consider human life as an evolving entity starting maybe even before conception?

The Catholic church do not allow contraception.  Perhaps it is interference with God’s will that is more at stake here than the consideration for the embryo or fetus?

Rather than looking at what positions will be best to win the debate for our side, maybe we should be looking at the underlying source for the disagreement.

If compromise and understanding the other side is the way to conduct our lives, is everything negotiable ?

Here, unfortunately, we have to make a U turn.

While we all have different belief systems and we are trying to live peacefully with people with other belief systems, there are underlying foundations of a democratic society that cannot be compromised.

One example of this is equality, another is protection of the law against murder and other personal violations.

However, we must be careful that we keep this set of democratic principles small to allow a pluralistic society without trampling on the freedom of those who don’t hold our views.

The issue of abortion rest crucially on whether the fetus should be given the freedom to be balanced against the mother’s and that is why the issue is so controversial.

I will not be able to settle the abortion issue in this blog but these are more thoughts on changing the way we discuss our disagreement to aim more at understanding each other rather than trying to win.

Ambiguous thoughts for a challenging, complex, but interesting world.