Russ Nieli argues that young people can still be persuaded to be pro-life by recapping an abortion debate held at Princeton over ten years ago.

Bringing Marx into the Abortion Debate

by Russell Nieli 

Two points can best persuade young people about abortion: our need for laws that protect the weak and vulnerable and the deadening of conscience that often accompanies pro-choice sentiment.

Many years ago I was part of a six-person debate panel on the Princeton University campus sponsored by Princeton's famed debating club, the Whig-Cliosophic Society. Three people sat on the pro-abortion side, including two high-profile senior Princeton faculty--philosopher Peter Singer and biologist Lee Silver--and an experienced undergraduate debater named Emily Garin.

On the pro-life side sat I, a lowly part-time lecturer in Princeton's Department of Politics; Daniel Robinson, a psychology professor from Georgetown totally unknown to most Princeton students; and a novice debater and freshman Whig-Clio member, Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky. The arrangement looked like a set-up, with a weak team chosen to represent one side (pro-life), a much stronger team the other (pro-choice). Given that the vast majority of Princeton students were known to be on the pro-choice side of the controversy, it looked as if the debate would be a slam-dunk win for the abortion-rights people and a devastating loss for the babies.

From the start, however, the pro-life side began to capture the hearts and minds of listeners with a shared theme that resonated well with the largely college-student audience. A major purpose of law, we stressed, was to protect the lives and wellbeing of the weak and vulnerable. And who could be weaker and more vulnerable than the tiniest of human beings not yet out of their mothers' wombs?

............

Read more: www.thepublicdiscourse.com