[WikiEN-l] Re: Our credibility is questioned

[Louis Kyu Won Ryu]

> 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