The Debate is Over, and Everyone Should Know

Whenever you are in a debate with a good friend and one of the two of you begins to lose the debate there is nearly always an attempt made by the person losing to use a hyperbolic statement to avoid losing the debate. However, this style of losing is typically reserved for arguments surrounding what restaurant has the best food or which type of computer, PC or Mac. Debates that are merely opinion based. This is because they are not directed around a question that would lead to a fact-finding mission. The debate that the two of you are having is only about personal opinion and is not able to become a debate over facts.

There becomes an issue when the losing side, which begins using hyperbolic statements, is on the losing side of a fact-based debate. An example of this problematic form of argumentation has appeared to have occurred in an off-the-cuff manner by State Rep. Mickey Dollens.

Rep. Dolllens made the hyperbolic statement in the ongoing debate around abortion when he said there should be a rule forcing men to receive mandatory vasectomies. While it is clear that this statement was not made with any grain of seriousness, that is not the critical aspect of this statement. What this off-the-cuff statement means and represents much more than just a poor attempt at pushing back at men for his anger about the actions of the Supreme Court and reflects a genuine lack of a logical rebuttal.

This statement made after the leaked draft of Roe v. Wade (1973) that was potentially going to be overturned by the Supreme Court shows that there is a clear understanding that abortion is not widely supported in different categories of people.

Forbes released an article that detailed a combination of analyses surrounding different polling results encompassing the beliefs of Americans regarding various aspects of the abortion debate. Within the article, there is evidence from a Gallup poll that shows that overall support for abortion was at an all-time high in May 2021. Although within the poll, it is clear that many believe that abortion is not the same as their position on the morality of abortion, with the poll reflecting record highs in moral acceptability at 47%.

These two data points are both interesting in their own right to track and follow the historical trends of the American public. Still, for 2022 the information shown within the polling data highlights the political system's impact on the general public. The media and other forces have conditioned the public to be willing to hold to a political position that they don’t view as morally acceptable, which should not be something the individual voter in the country should be willing to accept. The difference between support for abortion and the lack of moral support is a question that needs to be at the forefront of all discussions surrounding the topic—for the reason being that if something is not moral, why then should an individual support an immoral belief.

While there is a question surrounding the support for the immoral action of an abortion, it becomes crucial to examine the numbers. Leave the sound bites for the politicians and get the information to create a holistically informed position. Both the Guttmacher Institute and the Pew Research Center have conducted polls and collected statistics on abortion within individual states and the country as a whole.

The findings point to many conclusions that would not support the will of many on Capitol Hill pushing for a more expansive abortion availability.

Through the data that was collected by Guttmacher, the current number of Abortions is trending towards levels that are lower than the rates that existed in 1973. The data from 2014 showed that between the ages of 20-29, these individuals accounted for 61% of the total abortions performed. While in 2014, nearly 75% of those who obtained an abortion were living below the poverty line on a federal level.

In combination with other aspects of the poll data, it appears to be slightly deadlocked regarding the percentage of support for either side. The margin of error includes the percentage difference to set each side is entirely negligible. This is important because where the support for abortion is split nearly 50/50, there is an increased significance that citizens need to pay attention to because of the split. These people have an 80% view that abortion is immoral, and they are still willing to follow the current trend of bullying people into becoming “culturally acceptable.”

It is radical and utterly illogical that within their worldview, individuals would be able to look past what they view as murder to give credence to individuals who are not willing to take responsibility for the actions that they have taken. Culture has become such a powerful weapon and clubs are used to indoctrinate those who believe in defending life.

Although the more important aspect of the statement is that there is nothing that the pro-choice side of the argument has left. The science of life being formed at conception is now the answer, and the feelings of abortion activists are only rejecting it. Since there is no consensus within the support base for abortion when life begins outside of conception, it leads to many inherent logical inconsistencies. With the inability of the science to defend its own position, abortion supporters move to use the argument that removing abortion is an attack on women.

The development of points of argument for the pro-choice side only focuses on appealing to emotions because all of the science can no longer be skewed to defend their narrative. After years of continued debate, there is nothing left for the pro-abortion side to rely upon since each position they hold crumbles under even the lightest scrutiny or questioning.

Those who self-identify as pro-choice only believe in one choice and look down upon those who hold to the inherent value of life. Even the mainstream media struggles to tell the truth and shows that it is impossible to show the value of the child. The Washington Post attempted to go out of its way to demonize abortion laws. Then inadvertently showed that there is something valuable to having children because the two individuals were brought together in marriage. Not only was the couple married they were also placed on the path of having actual employment to support their new family.

Pushing legislators to struggle to find legitimate defenses of their ideas and opinions should build to the equivalent of a billboard on the side of the highway. That reads, “The End of Abortion in Oklahoma is Over Soon.” With Oklahoma Republicans following the lead of Texas and beginning to pass laws geared around bills to protect the lives of the unborn, an example being heartbeat bills. All of these actions in Oklahoma reflect the shift toward believing in science and trying to protect the lives of the unborn.

With the future of abortion most likely being placed in the hands of state lawmakers, it becomes increasingly more important to support those in government who are protecting the rights of those who cannot defend themselves. Those that identify as pro-life are also inherently pro-choice. Pro-life people believe that people have the choice to abstain from sex, have the choice to practice safe sex, and have the choice to work within the adoption space.

Ultimately, those who identify within the pro-life sphere need to defend their beliefs fervently and stop acquiescing to those attempting to hit them over the head with the cancel culture club.