University of Eastern Finland, Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Institute of Biomedicine/Anatomy, P.O. Box 1627, FI-70211, Kuopio, Finland.
University of Eastern Finland, Faculty of Science and Forestry, Department of Environmental and Biological Sciences, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101, Joensuu, Finland.
Reprod Health. 2017 Dec 2;14(1):163. doi: 10.1186/s12978-017-0418-y.
The ethical discussion about abortion has been polarized in Finland and the Republic of Ireland, two European countries with very different abortion legislation (liberal vs. highly restrictive). The aim of the present study was to analyze experiential thinking patterns and argumentative strategies in political and layperson debates regarding induced abortion.
The content of Finnish and Irish texts (n = 493), consisting of transcripts of parliamentary debates and online texts, such as blogs, was analyzed systematically. The texts were investigated for the aspects of experiential thinking, for selected argumentative moves and for any differences in the prevalence of these features between countries or between political vs. layperson debates.
The Finnish and Irish discussions about induced abortion relied heavily on experiential thinking patterns and emotionally laden arguments instead of objective research data. This was evident in the very high prevalence of testimonials, narratives, loaded language and appeals to emotion in both political and layperson debates regardless of the country or the debater's position on abortion issue. Research data that did not support the position of the debater were relatively often omitted by confirmation bias. The Irish debaters appealed to popularity more often than the Finnish ones, while magical/religious thinking was mainly observed in the Finnish layperson discussion. The national history and the prevailing cultural and religious atmosphere of the two countries could explain these differences.
The abortion debate mostly reinforces the opinions of one's peer group rather than convinces the opposite party to change their position. The stalemate and continuation of the same arguments being repeated could be associated with experiential thinking and emotional argumentative strategies in both political and layperson debates.
在芬兰和爱尔兰这两个欧洲国家，堕胎的伦理讨论已经两极分化，这两个国家的堕胎立法有很大的不同（一个宽松，一个严格）。本研究旨在分析关于人工流产的政治和非专业人士辩论中的体验式思维模式和论证策略。
对芬兰和爱尔兰的文本（n=493）进行了系统分析，这些文本包括议会辩论的记录和博客等在线文本。这些文本针对体验式思维的各个方面、选定的论证策略以及这些特征在国家之间或政治辩论与非专业辩论之间的差异进行了调查。
芬兰和爱尔兰关于人工流产的讨论严重依赖于体验式思维模式和情绪化的论点，而不是客观的研究数据。这在政治辩论和非专业辩论中都非常明显，无论是国家还是辩论者在堕胎问题上的立场如何， testimonial、narrative、loaded language 和 emotional appeal 的比例都非常高。不支持辩论者立场的研究数据往往因确认偏差而被忽略。与芬兰辩论者相比，爱尔兰辩论者更经常诉诸于流行度，而在芬兰的非专业人士讨论中，主要观察到了神奇/宗教思维。这两个国家的历史和国情以及当时的文化和宗教氛围可以解释这些差异。
堕胎辩论主要强化了一个人的同行群体的观点，而不是说服对方改变立场。政治辩论和非专业辩论中的僵持和重复相同论点的情况可能与体验式思维和情绪化的论证策略有关。
