5 ms·

Studies on persuading people out of prejudice do exist (see e.g. https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~broockma/kalla_broockman_reducing_exclusionary_attitudes.pdf http

Studies on persuading people out of prejudice do exist (see e.g. https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~broockma/kalla_broockman_reducing_exclusionary_attitudes.pdf https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~broockma/kalla_broockman_reduc... ). The problem is that the approaches are not as emotionally satisfying as just affirming your moral superiority and calling people bigots, so not many people do it (though some do, search for "deep canvasing"). Abortion is tricky because once you recognize the life of the embryo as a value to protect it's difficult to have it come as less compelling than a right to bodily autonomy. Still, most anti-abortion people would still carve out a lot of exceptions (rape, genetic problems, danger to the mother's life and so on). Most people recognize that the even right to life is not absolute (another example: they would agree it would be unlawful to refuse to obey an order in time of war that would almost certainly result in a soldier's death).

fossuser 6y ago
I think abortion is a lot easier when you frame the argument around suffering. I think part of the problem with abortion is the left argues that "it is not a life" which is generally a weak argument. It's better to accept/concede that you are ending life, but doing so without suffering before there's a neural net that can recognize anything - I think that's the important bit (and why third trimester abortions are banned anyway). The push back then tends to be that life itself is sacred and can never be ended (suffering is not relevant), but this is generally not truly believed by the people making the argument so it's easy to point out their contradictory support for the death penalty. They then usually say there's a difference between innocent life and people who've committed crimes at which point you're back to negotiating conditions and suffering seems like a pretty good condition to use. [Edit] It's also a messier issue because I think a component of the debate is shaming women for sex. That they should be forced to have their baby as some sort of penance for having sex. Obviously this is largely unsaid in favor of more palatable arguments, but if it's the true driver then it's hard to even start because you're not addressing the true motivation (which may not even be fully realized by the person arguing).
- pjc50 6y ago
  Suffering matters - of the mother. The death in hospital of a woman who was denied an abortion was the catalyst for the successful campaign in Ireland to get the constitution changed to permit abortion. #repealthe8th
- neutronicus 6y ago
  > I think part of the problem with abortion is the left argues that "it is not a life" I don't think this is accurate. Getting a typical pro-choice person to discuss the fetus at all, much less whether it can be called alive, takes some serious cornering (I am pro-choice, to be clear).
  - fossuser 6y ago
    Sure, but diverting the question from the topic where your point is weakest is just misdirection and isn't very persuasive. There are a lot of good reasons other than this one to support pro-choice, but those reasons will be irrelevant to someone who views 'abortion as murder'. You have to put yourself in their position and reason about it like they would, then think about what is the best argument from their position. Basically steel-manning their side and then tackling the best argument head on. I think this is where really interesting discussions happen and where minds can change, otherwise you end up just discussing the same tired points without making any progress.
    - mrmonkeyman 6y ago
      You guys are doing it right now.
- throwaway441 6y ago
  > I think abortion is a lot easier when you frame the argument around suffering. Really? I think it becomes much more difficult. It invites arguments for infanticide (see the 2013 Giubilini paper on after-birth abortion for a famous example of this). The same arguments concerning a woman who is not able to take care of a child apply equally well after birth if suffering is the only consideration, because it's entirely possible to end the life of the baby in a painless manner. As someone who is pro-life, I've generally found the suffering angle to be the least compelling of the pro-choice counterarguments.
pdonis 6y ago
> Studies on persuading people out of prejudice The GP is not talking about prejudice; he's talking about a genuine difference in priorities. Calling that "prejudice" implies that one of those choices of priorities is simply wrong; it ignores the possibility that there is no one "right" choice of priorities.
- afthonos 6y ago
  I think the argument doesn’t suffer if you replace “prejudice” with “strongly held beliefs”. The human mind doesn’t have a secret truth-o-meter, so from the inside, prejudice and strongly held beliefs are indistinguishable. The fact that some people hold a belief strongly is itself proof that that belief can be held, and therefore that people can be convinced to hold it. Basically, a technique that works to convince people away from prejudice over and above what presenting them with truth does should be applicable to any belief.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > I think the argument doesn’t suffer if you replace “prejudice” with “strongly held beliefs”. Yes, it does, because the post I originally responded to said "persuading people out of" these beliefs. How is that justified if the beliefs are not known to be wrong? "Prejudice" implies that the beliefs are known to be wrong, so it's justified to try to persuade people out of them. "Strongly held beliefs" does not carry the same implication.
    - afthonos 6y ago
      > How is that justified if the beliefs are not known to be wrong? My bad, I thought you were arguing that "prejudice" is something that can be argued-out-of, whereas a "genuine difference in priority" cannot. If you're arguing persuading people is unethical, then…I disagree incredibly vehemently. Like, that's what a peaceful society is built on; I'm not sure what other method of change you imagine would take its place?
      - pdonis 6y ago

fossuser 6y ago

I think abortion is a lot easier when you frame the argument around suffering. I think part of the problem with abortion is the left argues that "it is not a life" which is generally a weak argument. It's better to accept/concede that you are ending life, but doing so without suffering before there's a neural net that can recognize anything - I think that's the important bit (and why third trimester abortions are banned anyway). The push back then tends to be that life itself is sacred and can never be ended (suffering is not relevant), but this is generally not truly believed by the people making the argument so it's easy to point out their contradictory support for the death penalty. They then usually say there's a difference between innocent life and people who've committed crimes at which point you're back to negotiating conditions and suffering seems like a pretty good condition to use. [Edit] It's also a messier issue because I think a component of the debate is shaming women for sex. That they should be forced to have their baby as some sort of penance for having sex. Obviously this is largely unsaid in favor of more palatable arguments, but if it's the true driver then it's hard to even start because you're not addressing the true motivation (which may not even be fully realized by the person arguing).

pjc50 6y ago
Suffering matters - of the mother. The death in hospital of a woman who was denied an abortion was the catalyst for the successful campaign in Ireland to get the constitution changed to permit abortion. #repealthe8th
neutronicus 6y ago
> I think part of the problem with abortion is the left argues that "it is not a life" I don't think this is accurate. Getting a typical pro-choice person to discuss the fetus at all, much less whether it can be called alive, takes some serious cornering (I am pro-choice, to be clear).
- fossuser 6y ago
  Sure, but diverting the question from the topic where your point is weakest is just misdirection and isn't very persuasive. There are a lot of good reasons other than this one to support pro-choice, but those reasons will be irrelevant to someone who views 'abortion as murder'. You have to put yourself in their position and reason about it like they would, then think about what is the best argument from their position. Basically steel-manning their side and then tackling the best argument head on. I think this is where really interesting discussions happen and where minds can change, otherwise you end up just discussing the same tired points without making any progress.
  - mrmonkeyman 6y ago
    You guys are doing it right now.
throwaway441 6y ago
> I think abortion is a lot easier when you frame the argument around suffering. Really? I think it becomes much more difficult. It invites arguments for infanticide (see the 2013 Giubilini paper on after-birth abortion for a famous example of this). The same arguments concerning a woman who is not able to take care of a child apply equally well after birth if suffering is the only consideration, because it's entirely possible to end the life of the baby in a painless manner. As someone who is pro-life, I've generally found the suffering angle to be the least compelling of the pro-choice counterarguments.

pdonis 6y ago

> Studies on persuading people out of prejudice The GP is not talking about prejudice; he's talking about a genuine difference in priorities. Calling that "prejudice" implies that one of those choices of priorities is simply wrong; it ignores the possibility that there is no one "right" choice of priorities.

afthonos 6y ago
I think the argument doesn’t suffer if you replace “prejudice” with “strongly held beliefs”. The human mind doesn’t have a secret truth-o-meter, so from the inside, prejudice and strongly held beliefs are indistinguishable. The fact that some people hold a belief strongly is itself proof that that belief can be held, and therefore that people can be convinced to hold it. Basically, a technique that works to convince people away from prejudice over and above what presenting them with truth does should be applicable to any belief.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > I think the argument doesn’t suffer if you replace “prejudice” with “strongly held beliefs”. Yes, it does, because the post I originally responded to said "persuading people out of" these beliefs. How is that justified if the beliefs are not known to be wrong? "Prejudice" implies that the beliefs are known to be wrong, so it's justified to try to persuade people out of them. "Strongly held beliefs" does not carry the same implication.
  - afthonos 6y ago
    > How is that justified if the beliefs are not known to be wrong? My bad, I thought you were arguing that "prejudice" is something that can be argued-out-of, whereas a "genuine difference in priority" cannot. If you're arguing persuading people is unethical, then…I disagree incredibly vehemently. Like, that's what a peaceful society is built on; I'm not sure what other method of change you imagine would take its place?
    - pdonis 6y ago