What are everyone's thoughts on Eileen's
evaluation of our editorial policy on articles
relating to abortion?
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. Therefore, any article that merely includes terminology and
ideas from each POV is inherently wrong according to the other.
The armies of activists are coming to promote each agenda. Are we ready?
Louis