Go to Content Go to Navigation Go to Navigation Go to Site Search Homepage

Pictured above: Drs. Manninen and Mulder, photo by Tracey S. 

On a chilly November evening, 100 Arizona State University students, staff, and faculty met on West Campus in Glendale to discuss a topic that inevitably leads to a moral debate filled with anger, distrust, and heartbreak: abortion. At the front of Kiva Lecture Hall, two professors sat among the group and committed to a two-hour civil dialogue on abortion. This was a room divided in beliefs, yet united through dialogue. Civil dialogue with someone who holds an opposing position is not black and white — it’s all shades of gray.

Dr. Bertha Manninen, associate professor of philosophy at ASU’s New College of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, argued in favor of abortion rights, while Dr. Jack Mulder, professor of philosophy at Hope College, a Christian college in Michigan, argued against abortion.

Civil dialogue with someone who holds an opposing position is not black and white — it’s all shades of gray.

American public discourse is marked by an unfortunate trend: We choose only to discuss controversial topics with those who agree with us, leaving conversations with those outside our political, economic, social, and religious positions beyond the boundaries of possible dialogue. Further, if a discussion is to be had with someone on the opposing side, it usually slips into angry insults and disrespectful feedback.

Drs. Manninen and Mulder acknowledged this strict practice of discussion among like-minded people as an echo chamber:

an environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered, or further yet, considered to be repulsive.

When we confine ourselves to an echo chamber, they claimed we are committing ourselves to “ideological hardening”: an act of blind belief without the possibility for interpretation, influence, or critical awareness, creating a concrete stance on a specific ideology — leading to confirmation bias.

In order to soften the hardened ideologies within the room, both professors shared their reasons for choosing their position on abortion before the conversation opened up.

What Were the Arguments?

Dr. Manninen presented in support of abortion rights with two supporting arguments. First, Dr. Manninen provided statistics to show the injuries and deaths surrounding unsafe abortion practices due to inaccessibility, showing that restrictive abortion laws lead to higher mortality rates. Therefore, in order to have healthy and safe pregnancies, we must allow individuals the ability to make decisions and provide the necessary medical support to follow through with their decisions. Her second argument was the autonomy argument, which is grounded in the premise that we cannot force someone to use their body to save another’s life. For example, if someone is in need of a bone marrow transplant or a kidney transplant, no one is required to give up their body to save that person’s life, nor are they legally forced to use their body. Only in pregnancy is a person’s bodily autonomy questioned.

Following, Dr. Mulder presented against abortion rights. His argument was thin, yet concise and with depth. He argued that abortion is an act against a vulnerable party and any living “human animal” should be accorded moral treatment — no matter what.

Drs. Manninen and Mulder continued this peaceful exchange of ideas and responses. The lecture hall was calm, almost comfortable. This dialogue was so remarkably civil that one audience member stated, “This is the kind of conversation that needs to be highlighted on social media and news outlets, but I’ll be honest, it’s not sensational enough to gain attention — this was too easy, too boring.” I’ll admit, I was in agreement with them. This realization was a heartbreaking commentary on the state of dialogue in our society. Are we valuing drama and disrespect over growth and understanding? Can we only have civil dialogue in a controlled environment?

The Recipe for Civil Dialogue

So how does civil dialogue work in the “real world”? How can we have conversations without contaminating our exchanges with the visceral emotions we feel about abortion, while still allowing for the heat of debate? Both Drs. Manninen and Mulder agreed on the recipe for civil dialogue:

  • The willingness to concede there is a key tenant in the other person’s argument

Focus on the other’s humanity. People on both sides of the debate might be able to agree that an embryo or fetus is living, even if they disagree on the significance of when life begins or how important a pregnant person’s bodily autonomy is in comparison to the living embryo or fetus in their womb.

  • Acknowledging the flaws and limitations within your own argument

Be self-critical — you’re not always right.

  • Don’t use language that gets in the way — avoid using labels

Labels do not reflect the complexity of how most people actually think and feel about abortion. The goal of civil dialogue is to move through the spectrum of perspectives with patience and understanding, whereas using labels makes positions more concrete.

  • Finding a point, or multiple points, of convergence within both arguments.

Although many abortion opponents also fight against access to contraception or medically accurate sex education, there are plenty of people in the real world whose discomfort with abortion doesn’t extend to their feelings about contraception or sex education. People on both sides can often find common ground around preventing unwanted pregnancies, for example by increasing access to birth control or comprehensive sex education, reducing incidence of abortion and giving more people control over their reproduction.

  • Practice, practice, practice. 

Even with these five simple steps, civil dialogue surrounding a topic as impassioned as abortion is still not an easy task. Participating in dialogical action with someone who holds an opposing position is not simply a black-and-white matter; rather it’s all shades of gray — ambiguity with red-hot emotions.

Allow yourself to feel it … now take a deep breath.

So the questions is: Can YOU have a civil dialogue on abortion? I think yes. Actually, I full-heartedly believe so. With the holidays right around the corner, I challenge you to take this opportunity to break down the echo chambers … to follow the civil dialogue recipe … to have the difficult conversations … to listen to the “crazy uncle” whose beliefs you can’t fathom … to see the humanity in them … and to find patience, care, and love in your response.

Planned Parenthood is proud to provide safe, legal abortion at health centers around the country. We believe you deserve accurate information, and access to the full range of reproductive health care services, including safe, legal abortion — so you can make your own, fully informed health care decisions.

Tags: Debate, activism, Contraception, dialogue, philosophy, ASU, civility, bias, sex education, birth control, Abortion

Explore more on

About Tracey S. 

Tracey is a graduate student at Arizona State University’s West Campus studying communication as it relates to advocacy. Tracey believes dialogue is an act of love and strives to empower others to find and use their voice. She is an education outreach intern at Planned Parenthood Arizona.


This website uses cookies

Planned Parenthood cares about your data privacy. We and our third-party vendors use cookies and other tools to collect, store, monitor, and analyze information about your interaction with our site to improve performance, analyze your use of our sites and assist in our marketing efforts. You may opt out of the use of these cookies and other tools at any time by visiting Cookie Settings. By clicking “Allow All Cookies” you consent to our collection and use of such data, and our Terms of Use. For more information, see our Privacy Notice.

Cookie Settings

Planned Parenthood cares about your data privacy. We and our third-party vendors, use cookies, pixels, and other tracking technologies to collect, store, monitor, and process certain information about you when you access and use our services, read our emails, or otherwise engage with us. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences, or your device. We use that information to make the site work, analyze performance and traffic on our website, to provide a more personalized web experience, and assist in our marketing efforts. We also share information with our social media, advertising, and analytics partners. You can change your default settings according to your preference. You cannot opt-out of our Necessary Cookies as they are deployed to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting the cookie banner and remembering your settings, to log into your account, to redirect you when you log out, etc.). For more information, please see our Privacy Notice.



We use online advertising to promote our mission and help constituents find our services. Marketing pixels help us measure the success of our campaigns.



We use qualitative data, including session replay, to learn about your user experience and improve our products and services.



We use web analytics to help us understand user engagement with our website, trends, and overall reach of our products.