Civility in discourse

[Mark Graber]

My sense of the universe is that in most contested debates, parties on
each side attempt to appropriate a label which the other claims masks
what they are truly up to.  One solution to this difficulty is that, in
abortion for example, we agree to use the label "pro-choice" and
"pro-life," even though pro-choicers think "pro-life" does not describe
what people who oppose abortion are really up to and pro-lifers do not
think that "Pro-choice" describes what people who support abortion are
really up to.  The descriptions, at least to my mind, are conventional,
not quite as offensive as describing the Klan as a group that favors
traditional values, and show respect to people on this list who I think
are worthy of respect.

I confess whether calling things what they really are has some
attraction for scholars, that few of the comments on what pro-choicers
and pro-lifers are really up to seem to advance the argument much by
making points unfamiliar to the members of this list.  Perhaps I am
wrong, but may I suggest that if this thread is to continue, we confine
ourselves to detailing points that many list members may not be aware of
(a good example, by the way, is the differences between different forms
of late term abortions, a discussion on all sides I found quite
enlightening).

Mark A. Graber

>>> "Richard Dougherty" <doughr at udallas.edu> 04/19/07 2:44 PM >>>