4 ms·

The rhetoric each side adopts precludes/ignores the other side's arguments, and thus there is no communication. Moreover, whatever your opinion of abortion rig

The rhetoric each side adopts precludes/ignores the other side's arguments, and thus there is no communication. Moreover, whatever your opinion of abortion rights, Roe vs Wade was not based on solid legal reasoning and it was foolish for liberals to depend on it over the last half century instead of explicitly codifying it into law or the Constitution.

brewdad 4y ago
> The rhetoric each side adopts precludes/ignores the other side's arguments, and thus there is no communication. This is the blue dress vs gold dress of politics. There is no communication because the two sides see the world in fundamentally different ways.
- SubiculumCode 4y ago
  It is not just that they see the world differently, their language does not even try to counter the opposing side's argument.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  I have to disagree. I more or less understand the pro-life point of view, which is that a fetus is a precious life. Since I'm not religious, it's clear to me that the fetus is alive, but I don't see it's life as important until it is capable of thought, emotion, and sentience, in general. I would say this is the essential difference between most pro-life and pro-choice philosophy. After that, I switch to a much more consistent version of "pro-life" which includes a moral imperitive not to cause undue (frivolous, even) suffering or harm to any living thing.
BackBlast 4y ago
> The rhetoric each side adopts precludes/ignores the other side's arguments, and thus there is no communication. This is the general case on most topics. Accepting the other side's framing is tantamount to "losing the argument" to most people. Often that framing defines the other side as essentially evil and thus not worth listening to or reasoning with. There are precious few places where actual debates where primary arguments are understood and rebutted by mutually respecting parties.

brewdad 4y ago

> The rhetoric each side adopts precludes/ignores the other side's arguments, and thus there is no communication. This is the blue dress vs gold dress of politics. There is no communication because the two sides see the world in fundamentally different ways.

SubiculumCode 4y ago
It is not just that they see the world differently, their language does not even try to counter the opposing side's argument.
DangitBobby 4y ago
I have to disagree. I more or less understand the pro-life point of view, which is that a fetus is a precious life. Since I'm not religious, it's clear to me that the fetus is alive, but I don't see it's life as important until it is capable of thought, emotion, and sentience, in general. I would say this is the essential difference between most pro-life and pro-choice philosophy. After that, I switch to a much more consistent version of "pro-life" which includes a moral imperitive not to cause undue (frivolous, even) suffering or harm to any living thing.

BackBlast 4y ago

> The rhetoric each side adopts precludes/ignores the other side's arguments, and thus there is no communication. This is the general case on most topics. Accepting the other side's framing is tantamount to "losing the argument" to most people. Often that framing defines the other side as essentially evil and thus not worth listening to or reasoning with. There are precious few places where actual debates where primary arguments are understood and rebutted by mutually respecting parties.