Politique Vert references me as an example of someone with whom one could not have a meaningful discussion on abortion.
I have a question for her (I think that blogger is female):
What would constitute a "meaningful discussion on abortion"?
Abortion debates do tend to go round and round and the same arguments tend to be brought up. One of my personal goals is to change the rhetoric, and change the parameters of the discussion.
I have a hunch (although I could be wrong-- I'd have to get PV's take on this) that a "meaningful discussion" in the eyes of a progressive must always involve the other person coming to a progressive conclusion.
That's not a meaningful discussion to me.
I think debates on abortion can be fruitful. I've learned lots from debating my ideological opponents. I hope my opponents learn from me, although I don't expect them to admit it. I haven't changed my mind, and I don't expect my opponents to change, either.
But the exchange of views and information is extremely useful and eye-opening. I don't debate to convince my opponents. I debate for information-gathering purposes, as well as to put out my take on the issue for those lurkers who might be reading and making up their minds.
What I regret is that abortion debates do often turn sour. For many years, I didn't discuss the issue because it would drive me ballistic. Now, I get heated, but I don't get mad, or at least not furious. I have no expectation of convincing anyone of my point of view. What my experience has shown me, though, is that if I simply express myself intelligently and coherently, I will sway lurkers, if not actually convert them. To me, that is worth the while. I also feel better able to see people beyond the ideologies, the insults and so on. I hope that people would reciprocate, but that is not usually the case. When you're a pro-lifer, in many people's eyes you're scum. Not most people, but a lot of people, especially people involved in the pro-legalized abortion movement.
I would also like to comment Politique Vert's use of the phrase "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen".
This phrase is a favourite cliche. But its use if the product of prejudice. It has no basis in reality. It's a demagogic phrase used to paint the opposition with a dark brushstroke in order to demonize them. Whether it has any basis is not the point. As long as a person is socially conservative, they want women "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen" and there's nothing to question in that phrase. Socially conservative women are not owed the courtesy of being faithfully represented.
Only progressive women matter.
What exactly does it mean, anyway? Do progressives truly imagine that so-cons are barefoot? Well, if they truly believe that, they're either ignorant or prejudiced or both. I can't believe they really think that. Do they think we are all pregnant? Newsflash: I'm not pregnant, I haven't been pregnant in two years, I don't plan to be pregnant soon. Most so-con women make choices as to whether they will bear children providentially or whether they have a certain number.
And in the kitchen? Almost every woman cooks. Does that make a woman June Cleaver?
I'm no June Cleaver. I don't know too many June Cleavers. I couldn't hold a candle to Martha Stewart. Heck, I couldn't hold a candle to Roseanne Connor.
So much for feminism.
_________________________
Visit Opinions Canada
a political blogs aggregator
_________________________
