Most unfortunately, I wasn’t able to attend this abortion debate at Ottawa U last night. We get a thoughtful assessment of the event from The Crusty Curmudgeon:
The lecture hall in the Arts Building, which nominally seats 200, was packed out to overflowing. The opening and closing comments by the organizers acknowledged that a crowd of this size, eager to hear a debate, proved that abortion in Canada is not the settled issue many of its advocates claim it is. Moreover, the university was to be commended for its commitment to academic freedom by hosting the debate, and all involved for proving that it could be held civilly and respectfully. These remarks drew long and loud applause: the SMU shouters with their “symbolic action” and “personal autonomy” three weeks ago do not represent the mainstream of student thought.
Sounds like a great event. Congratulations to Daniel Gilman and those at Ottawa U who organized it.
by 
I attended the debate. I thought Stephanie Gray did brilliantly: clear, articulate, logical, passionate, and convincing, always bringing the argument back to the logic of the humanity of the fetus and the fact that it is being killed through abortion, and our duty to protect our most vulnerable and those without a voice.
Dr. Sneddon did not really contest the “fetus as human” or reality of the killing, but relied heavily on an analogy of a mother whose son needs her kidney to survive, and that she has the right to deny her son her kidney as her rights to her body part trumps his. I thought Stephanie skewered that argument. Dr. Sneddon was well-spoken also, but his “inhuman” philosophical points left me cold.
All in all, the debate was a great success; my guess is over 250 people over-flowing the hall, everything was done in a respectful way, and the biggest cheer of the night was to Ottawa U for allowing free speech on their campus. Congratulations to the organizers.
I’m glad you enjoyed the concert because all you missed at the debate was having to suffer through sitting in an overfilled, stuffy room filled with an inordinate amount of the type of people who find it necessary to be in public while physically ill.
Did you primarily hear the pro-choice side was “quite good” from those about to attend the debate or from those who actually witnessed it? Because while hope in the abilities of a man allegedly trained in philosophy and ethics should have been quite high the good doctor in practice put on a pathetic display.
The only argument he cared to argue was absurd and irrelevant (should your mother be forced to donate a kidney to you if she was the only one in the world who could save your life). His presuppositions were also not as self-evident as his arguments implied. His train of thought was confused and his abilities in public speaking limited. I have not read his works so perhaps he is better able to communicate in the written word, but as for him being a teaching professor for me this only stands as another example of the superiority of Carleton University for all those not concerned with receiving a university education in the English language.
I was hoping he might have been able to clarify his points during the “debate” portion of the night, but the format (each participant with 8 minutes to ask a barrage of questions and 9 minutes to ramble on as they wish) precluding any such possibility.
Stephanie Gray did do a good job in what she does. But Sneddon’s reliance on the concept of what’s permissible and his inabilities in rhetoric or to verbally present a flowing argument prevented the night from truly becoming a engagement over the question of the morality of the abortion procedure and the relevance such a question has on the character of a society (although Gray did make some points towards this).
But yes congratulations to the organizers and most of those in the audience for engaging with the question and maintaining a civil tone.
Dr. Sneddon’s argument was not “absurd and irrelevant”; it is a variation on the famous violinist argument presented by Judith Jarvis Thomson in the 1970s; it’s one of the better arguments in favour of abortion rights. As you point out, it isn’t without some major problems, and Stephanie pointed out a few of these flaws in what little rebuttal time they had (I wish they would have structured the debate to allow for more, as well as a proper cross-examination period).
Sneddon is an academic philosopher specializing in ethics, and therefore an experienced lecturer on these topics. He had an argument prepared, he speaks reasonably well ex tempore, and unlike most other pro-choice advocates I’ve heard in debate he did not start whining about his opponent being “unfair” or try to play to the pro-choice feminists in the audience. He held his own, and lost, but it was a fair fight.