In our previous discussion, we learned that a critical component of debate is the definition of terms. Those definitions must be reasonable, logical, and clear. Without a clearly defined definition of the terms of the debate, no germane, cogent discussion is possible.
This installment is to describe a debate tactic. It is called the “even if,” argument. “Even if” a certain fact is, in fact, true, how does that change the tenor and course of the debate? We aver that the fact in question does not change the thrust, nor results, of the proposal and is either irrelevant or, possibly, contradictory to the opposing position.
An excellent example of this tactic, but, unused to this point as far as I know, is from the contest for Senator from Georgia. Senator Warnock’s supporters have accused Herschel Walker of encouraging and even facilitating former girl friends to abort their shared children. Walker is campaigning on a platform, of among other things, of being against abortion. The ironic part of this argument, is that Warnock, himself, is in favor of abortion.
In short, Warnock’s campaigners’ position is, that Walker is wrong and unreliable because he changed his mind. In fact, it would seem that the fact that he now opposes something that he allegedly supported in the past is the “burr under the saddle.” Or more likely, a “spur to the neck.”
To my knowledge, Walker’s response has been to deny the validity of the charge that he was involved in advocating for an abortion. Let’s apply the “even if” analysis to this question. Even if the incident in question were true, how does that change the force of the debate? If the position of favoring abortion was wrong, and he changed his mind, then why should he be excoriated and condemned? On the other hand, is it the direction of the change that is the sticking point? If he had changed from anti-abortion to pro-abortion would they still be against him?
Let’s explore other “changes of mind.” Here is a quote on a notable change of mind reported by that conservative bastion, CNN. (https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/politics/joe-biden-abortion-draft-opinion/index.html)
“Long one of the Democratic Party’s most moderate voices on abortion, Biden has reckoned with personal qualms rooted in his Catholic faith.
“He said early on in his career that while he supported individuals’ right to an abortion, he opposed federal funds paying for them. Later, he backed Republican efforts to ban so-called ‘partial-birth abortions,’ a non-medical term describing rare late-term procedures, and said he would have liked to go further in restricting them.
“In 2006, two years before he was elected vice president, he told an interviewer he did “not view abortion as a choice and a right.” A year later, he spelled out his internal conflict in an appearance on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press.’
“‘I was 29 years old when I came to the United States Senate, and I have learned a lot,’ he said. ‘I’m a practicing Catholic, and it is the biggest dilemma for me in terms of comporting my religious and cultural views with my political responsibility.’”
Here he admits that he changed his position, only in the opposite direction from Walker. It appears that Warnock’s supporters oppose the fact that he is now against abortion, rather than for it. “He is unstable and unsuited for the position.” Even that charge is illogical. If he is indeed, unstable, then he might change back to favoring abortion. That would be a win for the Democrats. Sounds like an argument that a Republican might have used in the primaries to vote for another candidate. If he changes now, it would be in favor of the pro-abortion position.
So “even if” Walker has changed his mind, it merely shows that he has evaluated the the facts and decided that he was wrong. It is alive, it is a baby, it is a baby person. And it has worth. We should not call it, an “it.” “He or she” is more accurate. However that evokes another debate, which I will forego. ("Whew," goes the crowd.)
Personal Postscript: If the voters of Georgia base their votes on a pro or anti abortion stance, they are pretty shortsighted. Soaring prices for the necessities of life, soaring crime rates, soaring numbers of illegal immigrants, and plummeting confidence by our allies in the resolve of America to defend them, and other critical issues obscure the import of whether a woman can “terminate a pregnancy at will.” If the entire Congress were for abortion, or against abortion, these issues would still dominate the lives of citizens for years to come. Focus on the critical issues.
