Set up your Free Think University account to access free courses, unlock scholarships, and experience other community benefits.

 Register as New Student
 Register as New Donor


Forgot your password? Click here.

Not a member? Click here.

Need help logging in? Click here.


Enter your email address below and we'll send you an email to reset your password.


We could not find your email address in our system. Please contact for additional help.


Your password has been sent to your email address on file.


Please contact the River Foundation for more information on your scholarship requirements.


Pro-Life, Pro-Choice,
or Something Else?

Conclusion: How to Participate in the Debate

A major factor in this debate is the high level of emotion that inevitably creeps in.  Surveying the material online concerning this debate will quickly convince most that much of the discourse on this issue is anything but civil.  Our democratic republic demands that citizens be able to conduct civil discourse without the rancor and mean-spirited rhetoric found in much that passes for debate on this subject.  Knowing that a free-thinking individual will be faced with the need to discuss this topic, the final chapter is reserved for a discussion of how one can participate in an ethical debate and remain civil.

In the following opinion piece from The Seattle Times, ethics professor Charles C. Camosy from Fordham University highlights five tips for conducting dialogue with another person in all areas of ethical disagreement.  His general suggestions are specifically helpful in discussing the issue of abortion.

Charles C. Camosy

Charles C. Camosy

5 Tips for Creating Civil Discourse in an Era of Polarization

By Charles C. Camosy (Source)

Congress is now more polarized than at any time since Civil War Reconstruction. As we barrel toward a nasty presidential election, things will get even worse.

Whether it is the news channels we watch, the blogs we read, the people we follow on Twitter, our physical neighbors, our Facebook friends, our churches, or the people with whom we socialize, most of us consume information in communities which do not invite us to critically examine our positions.

The polarization is particularly powerful during those increasingly rare times during which we are forced to engage ideas to which we are seldom exposed: say, at Thanksgiving dinner, or in a required course in college or while watching a presidential debate. When we do have our safe, comfortable views directly and thoughtfully challenged, we are often unable to come up with something other than a polarizing response.

Happily, there are signs that we can do things differently. A recent international conference on abortion that I planned at Princeton University called “Open Hearts, Open Minds, and Fair-Minded Words” brought several dozen academics, public figures and activists from all sides of the debate together for dialogue.

We talked honestly about our differences, but also explored areas where some of us might be able to come together: protecting the consciences of workers and institutions, the implications of a later-term fetus’ sensitivity to pain, and giving women the resources to choose their pregnancies and provide for their children.

I also started an annual dialogue between a group of young theologians dedicated to getting beyond the liberal/conservative polarization in the Catholic Church, and have just released a book which details my conversation and personal relationship with perhaps Christianity’s most infamous opponent: atheist philosopher Peter Singer.

Singer and Camosy on a panel discussion

Singer and Camosy on a panel discussion

On the basis of these experiences, I propose five practices for moving beyond the polarization which currently dominates our public discourse:

  • Humility. We are finite, flawed beings and are prone to making serious mistakes. We need to enter into discussions and arguments with this at the very front of our minds — not only in being comfortable with someone challenging our point of view, but also reserving the right to change our mind when our argument is shown to be problematic.
  • Solidarity with our conversation partner. This involves active listening, presuming that one has something to learn, and (if possible) getting to know them personally beyond an abstraction. Never reduce another’s ideas because of their gender, race, level of privilege, sexual orientation, or social location. Similarly, never reduce them to what you suspect are their “secret personal motivations.” Instead, give your partner the courtesy of carefully responding to the actual idea or argument that she is offering for your consideration.
  • Avoiding binary thinking. The issues that are seriously debated in our public sphere are almost always too complex to fit into simplistic categories like liberal/conservative, religious/secular, open/close-minded, pro-life/pro-choice, etc. Furthermore, it sets up framework in which taking one side automatically defines one against “the other side” — thus further limiting serious and open engagement.
  • Avoiding fence-building and dismissive words and phrases. It might feel good to score these rhetorical points, but doing so is one of the major contributors to our polarized discourse. Let us simply stop using words and phrases like: radical feminist, war on women, neocon, limousine liberal, prude, heretic, tree-hugger, anti-science, anti-life, and so on. Instead, use language that engages and draws the other into a fruitful engage of ideas.
  • Leading with what you are for. Not only is this the best way to make a convincing case for the view you currently hold, but this practice often reveals that we are actually after very similar things and simply need to be able to talk in an open and coherent way about the best plan for getting there.

Based on these suggestions and the information contained in this course experience, will you accept the challenge to engage in civil discourse about this key ethical question?