In all those cases, you can explain the existing sides and show the available evidence for each. This isn't perfect, but those cases don't show the imperfections clearly enough.

You have to look at the details before you find the grey areas. Consider the case of abortion, and further consider the question of the existence of the human soul. There's no scientific evidence for souls, but the decision to look only at scientific evidence is itself a bias towards a certain way of understanding the world.

This is still much better than just deciding to pick one or the other side and ignoring the dispute.

I don't see those examples as being either-or. They don't seem like questions about any kind of objective truth, just questions about what aspect of a thing you think is the most important to you.