Why Strive for Balance in a Roe Symposium

Those who attended this Symposium disagreed in many ways regarding abortion, but I doubt that anyone disagreed with our title, Roe at 40: The Controversy Continues. A tiny sampling of the public comments made in January 2013, Roe's actual fortieth anniversary, confirms this fact. University of Chicago Law Professor Geoff Stone described Roe as "a triumph of American constitutional law."1 On the other hand, New Jersey Congressman Chris Smith labeled Roe "infamous, reckless and inhumane."2How should one organize a symposium about a subject that evokes such dramatically conflicting points of view? Our principal objective was balance.3 Symposium attendees and the readers of this volume must be the ultimate judges, but I believe that we succeeded.4 Why, though, was balance thought to be a worthwhile goal?Part of the answer comes from the Symposium's venue, Washington and Lee University School of Law, an educational institution. Any conscientious educator believes that delving into a controversial topic requires exposure to a variety of perspectives.5 But did we actually think that any Symposium presentations or papers would change anyone's mind on abortion?6 Several factors would seemingly have made any such hope unrealistic.For one thing, the two sides view the abortion issue from radically different perspectives. To pro-choicers, the freedom to choose abortion is integral to a woman's equality, dignity, and liberty-a critical dimension of a woman's right to control her own body.7 Moreover, since Roe, this freedom to choose is cherished as an indispensable constitutional right.8 On the other hand, "[t]o pro-lifers, a woman who chooses abortion does not simply exercise sovereignty over her own body, but also takes the life of another human being. And pro-lifers view the Roe-declared constitutional freedom as illegitimate, a usurpation of the right to democratic self-government on the issue of abortion."9In addition to pro-choice and pro-life advocates' diametrically opposing perspectives, some basic characteristics of human nature make it difficult for us to change our minds.10 All humans are prone to cling to what we want to believe, despite any facts to the contrary. Psychologists refer to such thinking as "motivated reasoning" and "confirmation bias."11 "We start off with what we want to be true, look for evidence that supports our hopes, and screen out that which does not."12 There is even a physiological aspect to this. Professor Noreena Hertz states that academic literature on decision making reveals that when we humans "find data that supports our hopes[,] we appear to get a dopamine rush similar to the one we get if we eat chocolate ... or fall in love."13Thus, one would have been justified in concluding that prospects were dim that anything worthwhile would result from the Symposium. But even though the challenges were admittedly great, it would have been a mistake to disband the Symposium at its outset. The very fact that many came to an event publicized as balanced suggested an interest in being exposed to both sides of this complex issue. And after being warned about confirmation bias,14 those attending the Symposium were hopefully more on guard against humans' natural tendency to immediately reject anything that deviates from our existing views.15 Perhaps the same will be true for those reading the various Symposium papers. Even if no minds are changed, Symposium attendees and readers will all be better informed.But becoming more educated is not the only reason why balance was a core Symposium goal. Another human trait is stereotyping our opponents in unfavorable ways. We all tend to divide the rest of humanity into two main groups: those who agree with us and those who disagree. According to the late Professor Arthur Leff, we are further prone to subdivide the disagreeing group into "the usual residuary categories: ignorance, insanity, and evil."16 This negative stereotyping is rampant in the abortion debate. …