Playing the Devil’s Advocate

Do you consider opposing viewpoints?

So many of us focus on the future with fear, based on what has happened in the past either to us or others. We also fear things that have never actually happened, getting caught up in the maybes, the what-ifs, and the could've and might haves. Tell me, what good does that do? How does that serve us or solve the problems we face? It’s a waste of our time and effort, and it takes an emotional toll that only adds to the problem.

There is so much division around the world today. People feel so strongly about some things and believe that they are so absolutely right, they refuse to consider the other side of the story.

Consider the COVID-19 crisis. There’s no lack of polarity here. You have the vaccers and the anti-vaccers, and they are at opposite ends of the spectrum, to the point that they’re furious with each other, and communication between the two sides is nearly impossible. It’s gotten to the point that it’s not even about the virus as much as it’s about survival against perceived human rights and the fear of losing them.

People on the side of getting the vaccine have very valid reasons for feeling the way they do. There is a lot of research that shows how the vaccine lessens the risk of spreading the virus as well as surviving it if you get sick. People are angry with those who refuse to vaccinate because they believe it increases the risk to everyone. They accuse anti-vaccers of being stubborn, stupid, and selfish. Many won’t listen to the opposing view with an open mind, because they’re so angry and fearful. They preach, “Just look at the data!” To say there is a severe breakdown in communication would be an understatement.

People against getting the vaccine are just as fearful and angry, but for different reasons. For many of them, it’s become an issue of trust, or the lack thereof, and the potential of the loss of human rights. They don’t want people they don’t trust telling them what they can and can’t do regarding their bodies and their choices and decisions. They think the vaccers are gullible and misinformed, that there hasn’t been enough time to see the whole picture, and they don’t want to be controlled. They worry that the vaccine was developed too quickly and fear side effects that may not have been identified yet. Even more, they feel strongly about being able to make their own choices and refuse to be forced into doing something they don’t want to do.

Let’s play the devil’s advocate for a minute and look at some of the facts available to anyone who does a web search. I purposely did not double-check the facts I found, because most people who are adamant about a topic often stop once they find information that supports their beliefs.

According to the History of Vaccines website:

- Developing a vaccine can take up to 10–15 years

- Before it’s even approved for trials by the FDA, it goes through an exploratory stage that often lasts 2–4 years, followed by the clinical stages that often last another 1–2 years.

- Once the FDA has approved a virus for trials, there are three phases of mandated trials, followed by optional trials

- There are several agencies and protocols in place to monitor the effects of vaccines and their corresponding data after they are released to consider potential risks

According to the CDC website:

- Millions of people in the US have received COVID-19 vaccines

- The COVID-19 vaccine has and will continue to undergo the most intensive safety in US history

- A growing body of evidence has shown that these vaccines are safe and effective

- Although initially ranked as effective and as safe as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, based on more recent risk-benefit data analysis, is no longer recommended in many cases

- COVID-19 vaccines are effective and can reduce the risk of getting and spreading the virus that causes COVID-19

According to the John Hopkins website:

- From December 2020 to December 2021, about 470 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine have been given in the US

- Due to potential blood clots following administration of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, the CDC updated its recommendations in December 2021

Playing the Devil’s Advocate

- If a vaccine can commonly take 10–15 years to develop, how safe can the COVID-19 vaccine really be since it was developed in mere months?

- Considering that FDA approval of a new vaccine depends on data from several exploratory stages and trials that often take 1–4 years each, even before it’s approved for clinical trials, how could those steps have possibly been completed in a matter of months?

- Why are several agencies and protocols in place to monitor the COVID-19 vaccine more than ever before if it’s so safe?

- Data on the COVID-19 vaccine only goes back about one year. What if there are side effects that have not surfaced yet? One year isn’t a long time to collect irrefutable data. The fact is, we don’t know if there are any long-term effects.

- First, the government said the Johnson and Johnson vaccine was safe and just as good as the other two. Now they don’t recommend it, because they found out it can cause blood clots. Blood clots kill people. What other side effects will surface?

- You can’t trust the government or its agencies and their data, because they change their minds and recommendations all the time. It’s all about kickbacks. Plus, with all these variants popping up, what good does the vaccine really do?

I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind regarding their beliefs on COVID-19 vaccines. The purpose of playing devil’s advocate is to show that, whether or not you agree or disagree with another party, there are valid concerns on both sides “proven” by facts and data. Whether or not you consider the other side’s concerns as valid doesn’t really matter, because they do. You can look at any fact and any data and draw your own conclusion based on it. Too many people think that those who oppose their viewpoint should be forced to comply with mandates they don’t believe in without considering that the opposition feels just as strongly as they do. Power does not rest in overpowering others.

Accusing others of being wrong, stupid, and gullible not only doesn’t solve the problem, it aggravates it and keeps us from finding a solution. Until we’re willing to consider all sides of a conflict, we will remain conflicted, and a solution isn’t likely. When people are this divided, no one wins, regardless of how strongly they believe they are right. Until you’re willing to consider the other points of view, lack of understanding remains. And before you advocate forcing someone to do something they don’t believe in or want to do, consider how you would feel if you were the one being forced to comply when you feel just as strongly as the opposing party feels. Emotions only serve to further cloud the issue.

Another Example: Pro-choice vs Pro-life

I can’t think of many issues as controversial as the issue of whether or not abortion should be legal. Wherever you stand on this issue, try to view both sides without the emotion attached to them for just a moment.

From the Planned Parenthood website:

- People who are pro-choice believe that everyone has the basic human right to decide when and whether to have children, that it’s okay for them to have the ability to choose abortion as an option for an unplanned pregnancy, even if they wouldn’t choose it for themself

- Pro-reproductive rights versus Anti-Abortion is a more accurate description of the opposing viewpoints

- Pro-life, or anti-abortion people mistakenly disagree with most medical authorities about the definition of pregnancy and when life begins

- People against abortion also don’t believe people should be allowed to take birth control

From the Focus on the Family website:

- Whether you are a preborn baby, a newborn, an elderly person, or someone with disabilities and special needs, your life matters

- The term “anti-abortion” doesn’t adequately define what it means to be pro-life

- Human life begins at fertilization

- The number of women who get abortions due to rape and health issues account for less than 5%

Playing the Devil’s Advocate:

- If pro-choice people believe in human rights, how can they not consider the rights of unborn children?

- Life begins when the egg gets fertilized; if you look at the research, unborn children start developing into humans immediately; you can even see limbs and facial features early on

- If, when you remove a fetus from the womb, it cannot survive on its own, how can it be considered a person, especially if it doesn’t have a functional brain?

- There are many people who are against abortion but for birth control

- There are lots of people who are pro-choice who don’t believe abortions are good choices

- Many people who would never consider getting an abortion support the right for others to choose for themselves whether or not to get one

- If pro-lifers believe all lives matter, what about that 5% of women who are pregnant not by choice or whose own lives are in danger? Don’t their lives matter?

- Anti-abortion is not an adequate description for pro-lifers, because we’re all about everyone’s rights, not just unborn children

- No one has the right to tell a woman what she can and can’t do with her own body. What’s next, telling her she can no longer take birth control because it interferes with reproduction?

- Many pregnant women are unable to support another child or are in dangerous circumstances which endanger herself and a baby

- If women cannot afford or don’t want to have a baby, they should either abstain from having sex or if it’s too late, they should have the baby and give it up for adoption

- It’s no one’s business what choice a woman makes, and it’s nobody’s place to judge someone else, much less limit the choices available to them.

- How pro-life can someone be when they bomb abortion clinics killing those inside?

Although both of these websites present their statements as facts, the majority of the things I found are based more on opinion. I have to wonder where Planned Parenthood got their “facts” about most pro-lifers being anti-birth control, and the family website never addresses what to do with that 5% who were raped or don’t want to endanger their own lives. How do you decide which life is more important, the unborn child or the mother? Neither one takes into consideration the opposing side’s reasoning in an objective way, only presenting half the picture, which of course is the side on which they stand. They both blatantly try to manipulate the reader into agreeing with them, purposely prompting emotionally based responses.

One has to wonder what pro-lifers would say if the government ever stepped in and required all women of childbearing age to take birth control to conserve limited resources, so that all those who are already living can continue to live without the possibility of food and water running out. On the other hand, what would pro-choice people say if the government mandated a list of requirements to be met before a woman can choose to be pregnant?

Both sides claim to be misunderstood, yet neither attempts to understand the other. Nobody wants to be forced to do something they don’t want to do, yet so many people want and try to force their own beliefs and choices on others. Before you try to force others to bend to your will, you’d better consider how you would react if an opposing choice was forced upon you. Would that be okay?

There will always be opposing viewpoints and controversies, but if everyone who has chosen a side stops to consider that those opposing their views have the same right to their own opinions, we might be able to at least begin to find viable solutions. Considering and understanding the other side of the story doesn’t mean you have to change your mind or the side you stand on, but if you don’t even attempt to acknowledge the other side as having valid concerns, how can you expect them to give you the same courtesy?

We can all agree to disagree. I think we can also agree that nobody should be forced to comply with something to which they feel very strongly opposed. Overpowering someone is never a good, long-term solution. It causes more problems than it solves, and you never know when you might be on the receiving end of being forced to comply with something you disagree with later on. If you want the right to choose, you have to give that same right to others.

I’m in no way suggesting that everyone should do whatever they want whenever they want, regardless of others, the law, or factual information. That would be anarchy. I am suggesting that trying to force others to do your will — might makes right — not only fails and compounds the problem, but it can come back and bite you where it hurts. Truth is relative and dependent on many factors. Facts and data change and are disproven all the time, and you can slant anything to tell the story you wish to tell. Make your choices based on your beliefs, and let others do the same. Why should you have to do what other people tell you to do? Why should others have to do what you tell them to do? As strongly as you may feel about any given topic, you must consider that the opposition feels just as strongly as you do.

If you would like access to all articles on Medium, please click below for more information.