On Nov. 8, the citizens of Mississippi will be voting on Amendment 26, a very sensitive issue regarding the definition of “personhood.” The proposed amendment is a very short amendment, literally doing nothing more than giving a definition for the term “personhood,” but the implications are monumental.
We are deciding if birth control is ethical, if women have a right to abortions, if an organism in the womb has the same unalienable rights you and I do.
Unfortunately, these topics are painful to argue. Debating these ideas fosters animosity on both sides. We have all seen it happen: the debate starts calm and reasonable and then resorts to name-calling. Instead of Johnny and Sue arguing, it becomes the Bible-thumping bigot against the baby-killing liberal. As sad as this is, that is the nature of the topic. If you want a public display of this mudslinging, head out to the Drill Field during the day. The people who are truly passionate about the subject love to set up tables and convince people (who are trying to avoid them) to vote a certain way. Even better, they set up their coercion booths adjacent to each other so as to be able to make snide remarks like “you weren’t aborted” and “here’s the other side.” In my trash can, I have a nice collection of fliers handed to me trying to sway my vote, as if I’m not competent enough to make my own choice. A message to them: I am. I am well-informed of the initiative, its subsequent debates and the implications of enacting such an amendment. I do have an opinion, and your persistent need to hand me your garbage is annoying. I understand the importance of this debate, but I despise it, nonetheless. All of the verbal conflict is unhealthy and would be better unsaid.
Of course, Amendment 26 is not the only issue with this level of emotion. Every day, political pugilism leaves thousands angry and defeated. Take, for instance, the “occupy” protests. A Canadian group inflames people over economic and social inequality. One, single, solitary protest has migrated to 2,355 cities worldwide, as reported by the Occupy website. Two thousand, three hundred and fifty-five groups of people thought the answer to social problems was anarchy. There is not one movement, not a single goal, just thousands of people pulling in different directions, hoping a solution falls from the sky. The one thing you have to credit them with is emotion. This level of emotional protest has not been seen since the Vietnam conflict. Despite some of the protesters having a poorly-defined list of demands and goals, they are convinced that something will happen eventually. Unfortunately, due to the size and disorganization of the protest, it is quite likely that nothing will. You can walk down Wall Street and ask 10 people what they are protesting and possibly get 10 different answers. The value of emotion in debate only goes so far. Eventually, the argument breaks down into a simmering pool of hatred. We can see it happen on Wall Street, and we can see it happen on our own campus. This is not unique to those two places, either. Just watch and observe the Tea Party movement spew racist remarks at black senators or the Westboro Baptist Church picket a soldier’s funeral and suggest stoning gays to death. When calm, organized, reasonable debate doesn’t get the point across, sometimes angering a few people will.
However, this is in no way productive. From an outsider’s point of view, it only makes the group look ridiculous. As a society, we should learn to bracket our own beliefs for the sake of meaningful debate. Perhaps if we weren’t pointing pitchforks at the White House, Washington would be a bit more inclined to hear the complaints of the people.
And maybe, if the Amendment 26 debate stopped pitting the insane against the idiotic, and rather one rational human being against another, some actual progress could be made toward a solution.
Tim McGrath is a freshman majoring in  aerospace engineering. He can be contacted at [email protected].