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