To be clear:
Not every opinion is valid, worthy of debate, or valuable when we’re discussing facts. Some opinions are simply factually WRONG, to suggest otherwise is a cop-out. When this occurs do not appeal to god in an effort to justify your untenable, and most likely bigoted, opinions as “he” is unknowable and therefore moot. Me calling you out does not infringe your 1st amendment rights.
There aren’t always two sides to every story or issue; sometimes there are more or less. Giving coverage to “both sides” on noncontroversial issues actually often provides false balance and legitimacy to fringe extremists. In the case of contraception, comprehensive sex education, and abortion these SHOULD be noncontroversial issues as the majority of Americans (and the Western world) support them. Alas, they are not, due to a small minority of people who contaminate medical issues with personal morality and then demand we legitimize their beliefs with equal media coverage. This is a prime example of false balance, one I don’t intend to encourage here.
Don’t even bother with tone arguments. I have no obligation to be “civil” or “polite” to those that are actively limiting my human rights, nor are you entitled to order me around or make me play your circular arguments through to their hilarious conclusions. People that engage in distraction techniques will probably be met with snark and/or a link to Derailing for Dummies.
This actually shouldn’t be framed as a “debate.” This is an attack on my rights, which aren’t up for negotiation or popular vote. Go ahead and have an opinion personally, morally, religiously, or ethically, but don’t seek respect when you legislate them from a position of privilege and misogyny.
In addition, don’t embarrass yourself by comparing abortion to slavery, the Holocaust, 9/11, or Troy Davis. I WILL invoke Godwin’s Law, Tubman’s Law, and Helm’s Law respectively; you will automatically lose, full stop.
If the only defense for your argument is quibbling over dictionary definitions of terminology when I’m discussing complex and nuanced sociological, philosophical, legal, or scientific concepts the definitions of which could be contained in entire books, then don’t bother. My family invented Webster’s dictionary, I don’t need you to quote it for me.
There’s also no need to outright lie or commit emotional terrorism. If your antichoice position is cogent there will be no use for debunked breast cancer and mental illness links, fake photographs or those of stillborns, religious texts, emotional euphemisms, or paternalistic platitudes.
If you’re going to make contentious claims such as fetuses are persons then the burden of proof rests with you as you cannot ask me to prove nonexistence or a negative. Especially with the issue of personhood, don’t bother claiming science proves your case, as it’s a moral and legal concept, and precedent lies with the prochoice position.
For those of you who may want to claim that bodily integrity and autonomy are merely feminist rhetoric perhaps you should look into derivative rights, the 9th amendment, the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment, and the field of bioethics.
For those of you just waiting to call me (or abortion providers) a murderer, a Nazi, and the like, perhaps you should look into the definition of libel.
Lastly, to be absolutely clear: sexism= prejudice+power. The keyword here is POWER. The same goes for classism and racism. There are no “reverse” isms. Get over it.
Ok, let’s get started.
