|
|
|
I am all for politeness. Really. But what is there to debate here? What is there to dialogue about? I know politics is the art of compromise, and maybe there are things in this law that reasonable minds could differ on, but, really.
Ed Peters |
Homepage |
09.07.06 - 1:55 pm | #
|
|
I think one crucial element of the issue that is a matter of "debate" is when life begins. The pro-choicers/anti-lifers I've known have honestly believed that life begins at either viability or birth. However, I think that's part of what Bp. Cupich was alluding to in saying that science "could inform" the debate, but that science doesn't resolve moral issues. If science tells us that life begins before birth (i.e. the heart beats), that can "inform the debate", but if we let the debate be solely about science then we dehumanize the baby and lose the moral element.
My personal opinion is that the kind of civil dialogue that Bp. Cupich is advocating is essential to advancing the pro-life cause. Seems like most people on both sides don't think there's any point in debate or dialogue, so they just keep spouting off the same things at each other. That rarely changes minds or hearts.
Kasia |
Homepage |
09.07.06 - 2:51 pm | #
|
|
The Catholic Church at South Dakota State was vandalized.
http://www.keloland.com/News/New....cfm?
Id=0,50648
Catholicgauze |
Homepage |
09.07.06 - 3:08 pm | #
|
|
I fear I'm no good at debating things like abortionism or the Final Solution. I just start spouting off about the fundamental rights of innocent human beings and what not.
Seriously, a given debate might be educational, but that is not its purpose; its purpose to persuade one of a position licit in itself. I am all for education about abortionism, but to debate it, it seems to me, accords it a dignity of which it is totally unworthy.
Ed Peters |
Homepage |
09.07.06 - 4:27 pm | #
|
|
In a political debate, you are attempting to convince people for your position.
There is no issue that I know of that would have 100% of the electorate on one side or anther.
Even in the most red or blue state elections, it is exceedingly rare for a candidate with a serious opponent to get more that 70% of the vote.
Reasoned political debate attempts to chip away at the fringes of the opponents supporters to convince them to change sides.
The closer the election, the more heated (and expensive) the debate.
And even when you lose, there often is a residual benefit in that it might be easier to change minds in a subsequent election.
The woman who accuses the extreme left of have made "religions" out of the environmental and abortion movements is right. And they are as tenacious as as the most tenacious pro-lifer.
But there are millions who do not hold those extreme positions and reasoned political debate may sometimes change them.
Ray from MN |
Homepage |
09.07.06 - 6:16 pm | #
|
|
"But there are millions who do not hold those extreme positions and reasoned political debate may sometimes change them."
And I, having grown up being assiduously indoctrinated to be "pro-choice", feminist, and secular humanist, am living proof of that.
Ed, I didn't mean "spouting off" to suggest saying something that isn't worth listening to; I apologize for that choice of words. I meant that in some situations, particularly when people are passionate about something, we are apt to consider some things to be foregone conclusions, and argue as such. That often has the unfortunate result of us talking at people rather than engaging with them where they are, and thereby possibly changing their minds.
So, as an example, you and I (and probably everyone reading this) believes that life begins at conception, right? Unfortunately, a sizeable chunk of the American electorate doesn't agree with us on that. Some believe it begins at implantation; some at viability; some at birth. So talking about the "fundamental rights of innocent human beings" is a step or two down the road. First we need to convince our audience that no matter what it is clinically (a blastocyte, an embryo, a fetus), we are still dealing with a human person, not some inanimate hunk of tissue, and the corollary that life begins AT CONCEPTION. That, IMHO, is where the biggest battle for hearts and minds is won or lost.
Kasia |
Homepage |
09.07.06 - 9:17 pm | #
|
|
Kasia: Reasonable points, clearly made. Thx.
Ed Peters |
Homepage |
09.07.06 - 11:53 pm | #
|
|
Commenting by HaloScan
|