Louis Kyu Won Ryu wrote:
I would suppose that Eileen follows a scientism-based
view of abortion
and considers it self-evident that a woman has a right to control her
body; that abortion is a medical procedure and should receive
encyclopedic treatment similar to any other medical matter; and that a
fact-based article on abortion would be superior to one grounded more in
emotion than science.
I have to imagine that there is somewhere, out there, a pro-life person
who could argue just as persuasively that it is self-evident that babies
are created at conception and being unable to speak for themselves are
deserving of the greatest consideration and protection; that these
issues predate the medicalization of childbirth and reproduction and
should not be treated merely as a medical matter; and that a fact-based
article on abortion would lack compassion and fail to address the
personal, social, and human implications of the subject.
We can't win, because each point of view defines the baseline
assumptions of the other as being unworthy of consideration or
discussion.
I hold forth a great deal more hope that we can, in fact, win. While
it is of course true that there are some people, a small minority, for
whom neutrality itself is offensive, I think that by and large, there
is a HUGE group of people who can work together peacefully to present
a controversial issue in such a way as to satisfy both sides.
For the two people you have imagined, I would offer the following
solution(s) to which I think both could agree:
1. Abortion is an important political issue because some believe in a
woman's right to choose abortion, while others believe that it is
tantamount to murder.
2. Abortion is a medical procedure, the facts of which are easily
describable in medical terms, and an understanding of various methods
is important to an understanding of the debate.
3. We need to have clear fact-based articles about not only the
medical facts, but also about the personal, social, and human
implications of the subject.
The key here is that both side is convinced that they are right, so
intelligent proponents of both side can agree to a neutral
presentation because they believe that a neutral presentation will
naturally lead intelligent readers to come to the right conclusion,
their own.
--Jimbo