Who wrote that? The air of objectivity in the introduction is so obviously a pretense -- so filled with faulty premises and subjective opinions stated as fact -- that the author's declaration that he believes "abortion should be socially abhorrent and also considered illegal under the rule of law" comes as no surprise.
Heh, I was thinking the exact same thing. He seems to be attempting to seem (or maybe genuinely trying, but poorly, to be) neutral, but is very clearly anti-abortion with everything he says.
Mostly I found it ironic that Rule was pointing out that someone else was being pretentious and using faulty assumptions.
I personally don't know anyone who
isn't on one side or the other about the debate. I suspect that it would be very difficult to find someone neutral on the subject. The truth is, though, that it shouldn't be about whether someone is "neutral" in the debate or not. If someone is making the effort to understand the claims of one side of an argument, and incorporating that information into her or his argument, shouldn't we just take it at face value?
You can very well disagree with what the person says, but what does it matter whether the person is being pretentious?
Now, if she is not fact-based, that's certainly something that is worthwhile to pursue. But can that be it? Repeatedly, against others and frequently myself, I see arguments that attack the
person. It's okay to call someone out when they're not being fact-based. But there's a delicate line of balance at which it becomes disrespectful; and the truth is that, in civilized (or civilised, for those who prefer it) debate, we will get nowhere without respect.
