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