I just read Ed Brayton's commentary about an attack on a pro-life display on the campus of the University of Northern Kentucky. The professor who seems to have encouraged this is quoted as saying:
"Any violence perpetrated against that silly display was minor compared to how I felt when I saw it. Some of my students felt the same way, just outraged," Jacobsen said.
First, great job on on refuting the stereotype that women think with their hearts rather than their head Herr Professor! "Outrage" or "repugnance," Left or Right, it doesn't matter. Affairs of the heart have a role to play in focusing the sights, but the trigger finger must be connected to the head.
That being said, I have a personal reflection to communicate in regards to the abortion issue and many liberals. For many years I've lived in a small town that is very far to the Left politically. One time I was listening to the radio, and the host (a liberal fellow himself) wanted to open up dialogue on the abortion issue with pro-life people. This was prompted by a local march where pro-lifers had displayed signs and what not. Two callers really struck me.
First, one woman called who was enraged, and her voice trembled because of her anger. She stated that the marchers should be prosecuted for hate crimes, because they were displaying hatred against women. When the host tried to pull her down from this position she not only refused, I don't think she understood his logic in regards to free speech, she simply didn't see it as a matter of expression. Rather, she stated that she had felt assaulted and violated, and that was that.
Second, a local instructor at a junior college called in and explained that he had many pro-life students, but, he told them that if they talked about their politial beliefs in regards to abortion they should justify their points, because it wasn't an easy viewpoint to defend. The host asked if they might not believe that their position is easier to defend than the caller's pro-choice position, and he responded, "Well, I never thought of that."
The point here isn't to suggest that pro-choice people are innately intolerant or narrow-minded, it is to suggest that liberal values of dissent and pluralism of opinion do not come naturally to most people, Left or Right.
- Log in to post comments
liberal values of dissent and pluralism of opinion do not come naturally to most people, Left or Right.
Indeed. It's extremely challenging.
I've heard it said that "open-mindedness exists only in the imaginations of those who believe themselves to be open-minded." I think that sentiment is too cynical. However, I have found a large number of people-- including, sometimes at least, myself-- who use the term "open-minded" as a synonym for "agrees with me."
-Rob
including, sometimes at least, myself
self-criticism is the first step :)
we can't go through life second-guessing in agonizing detail all our choices, beliefs and decisions, but, it is important have a constant subprocess going which questions our logic.
Amen, bruddah.
"Affairs of the heart have a role to play in focusing the sights, but the trigger finger must be connected to the head."
Meanwhile back on Earth, precisely the reverse is the case.
Abortion is an issue I don't have a solid personal opinion on, that's not because I haven't thought about it. I'm an Atheist, my views are generally considered extremely left, yet I see the best arguments from both sides of the abortion issue as generally being balanced. I find the Idea of killing a fetus generally repulsive yet I don't think someone who can't raise a child or simply doesn't want to should. I guess some people would take this to mean "I have no Moral compass". I find it disconcerting yet inevitable that there are crazy illogical people who will share my world and political views.
I guess some people would take this to mean "I have no Moral compass".
well, remember that the roman catholic position on abortion has evolved. in the 19th century they still adhered to the idea of 'quickening' so that very early abortions were acceptable. this greek-influenced view is still common in much of the islamic world, even if life-begins-at-conception is gaining ground there too.
the key point on the abortion issue is to remember the issue that i alluded to in my previous post: there is what people say they believe, and what they believe. while pro-lifers generally oppose genocide against adult human beings, and will back wars to prevent this (or at least ostensibly to prevent this), only the most radical will condone violence to prevent abortions. why, when it is murder? i hold that that is because most pro-life people on a deep level do not make an equivalence between a fetus to a full human, but their language tends to be less nuanced and more stark and does not allow for this reality.
here are some thoughts on abortion beyond the stated axioms.
i hold that that is because most pro-life people on a deep level do not make an equivalence between a fetus to a full human, but their language tends to be less nuanced and more stark and does not allow for this reality.
You bolster my common refrain that our instincts are often a lot smarter than our intellect. (I think this is especially true regarding social questions.)
Most people instinctively agree that a fetus is between human and non-human.
"Katie Walker, a sophomore who is president of the school's Northern Right to Life said . . .
'Campuses are supposed to be public forums. I think professors should encourage that.'"
That one made me laugh. Everyone says that when it's their pet ideologies being opposed, but as soon as they're the ones doing the opposing, people scoff pretty easily at "free speech".
That one made me laugh. Everyone says that when it's their pet ideologies being opposed, but as soon as they're the ones doing the opposing, people scoff pretty easily at "free speech".
no, not everyone. libertarians tend not to. and i don't think people "scoff easily" at free speech either, they just make excuses about speech really isn't speech (eg., "it's obscenity, not speech," or "it's violence, not speech).