Introduction

Bertha Manninen, Jack Mulder

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingForeword/postscript

Abstract

In 2008, the late Soran Reader wrote, There can be no real question about whether abortion can be justified. To “debate” such a question is to harm women, just as to “debate” Apartheid would be to harm black South Africans. The fact that something so necessary for women is treated as a “debate” shows a worrying lack of respect. 1 As this passage shows, the abortion issue is particularly difficult and sensitive. The trouble is that it is difficult and sensitive precisely because people care about it very deeply and do so often for different reasons, though at times surprisingly symmetrical ones. For instance, the “pro-choice” writer (we will discuss terminology in a moment) has serious reasons assembled to say what Reader does in the epigraph here. But the “pro-life” writer also has serious reasons assembled to say precisely what Reader does about another marginalized population, namely, the very young and defenseless (as pro-life writers see it) who have not yet been born. No doubt each side sees the other evincing a “worrying lack of respect” in the sense that a marginalized population is dealt a bad hand by the policies she or he rejects, but as far as persuading the other side that he or she should change course, it will hardly do to shrug off rational and civil arguments from the other side and retreat to one’s ideological bubble (though of course we do not mean to attribute this further step to Reader herself).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationCivil Dialogue on Abortion
PublisherTaylor and Francis
Pages1-10
Number of pages10
ISBN (Electronic)9781351819244
ISBN (Print)9781138205864
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Reader
Writer
Harm
Abortion
Retreat
Epigraph
Apartheid
Africa
Bubble

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Arts and Humanities(all)

Cite this

Manninen, B., & Mulder, J. (2018). Introduction. In Civil Dialogue on Abortion (pp. 1-10). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315213651

Introduction. / Manninen, Bertha; Mulder, Jack.

Civil Dialogue on Abortion. Taylor and Francis, 2018. p. 1-10.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingForeword/postscript

Manninen, B & Mulder, J 2018, Introduction. in Civil Dialogue on Abortion. Taylor and Francis, pp. 1-10. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315213651
Manninen B, Mulder J. Introduction. In Civil Dialogue on Abortion. Taylor and Francis. 2018. p. 1-10 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315213651
Manninen, Bertha ; Mulder, Jack. / Introduction. Civil Dialogue on Abortion. Taylor and Francis, 2018. pp. 1-10
@inbook{d838d03fa9fd4fe1a52e03eccd309b85,
title = "Introduction",
abstract = "In 2008, the late Soran Reader wrote, There can be no real question about whether abortion can be justified. To “debate” such a question is to harm women, just as to “debate” Apartheid would be to harm black South Africans. The fact that something so necessary for women is treated as a “debate” shows a worrying lack of respect. 1 As this passage shows, the abortion issue is particularly difficult and sensitive. The trouble is that it is difficult and sensitive precisely because people care about it very deeply and do so often for different reasons, though at times surprisingly symmetrical ones. For instance, the “pro-choice” writer (we will discuss terminology in a moment) has serious reasons assembled to say what Reader does in the epigraph here. But the “pro-life” writer also has serious reasons assembled to say precisely what Reader does about another marginalized population, namely, the very young and defenseless (as pro-life writers see it) who have not yet been born. No doubt each side sees the other evincing a “worrying lack of respect” in the sense that a marginalized population is dealt a bad hand by the policies she or he rejects, but as far as persuading the other side that he or she should change course, it will hardly do to shrug off rational and civil arguments from the other side and retreat to one’s ideological bubble (though of course we do not mean to attribute this further step to Reader herself).",
author = "Bertha Manninen and Jack Mulder",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4324/9781315213651",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781138205864",
pages = "1--10",
booktitle = "Civil Dialogue on Abortion",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Introduction

AU - Manninen, Bertha

AU - Mulder, Jack

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - In 2008, the late Soran Reader wrote, There can be no real question about whether abortion can be justified. To “debate” such a question is to harm women, just as to “debate” Apartheid would be to harm black South Africans. The fact that something so necessary for women is treated as a “debate” shows a worrying lack of respect. 1 As this passage shows, the abortion issue is particularly difficult and sensitive. The trouble is that it is difficult and sensitive precisely because people care about it very deeply and do so often for different reasons, though at times surprisingly symmetrical ones. For instance, the “pro-choice” writer (we will discuss terminology in a moment) has serious reasons assembled to say what Reader does in the epigraph here. But the “pro-life” writer also has serious reasons assembled to say precisely what Reader does about another marginalized population, namely, the very young and defenseless (as pro-life writers see it) who have not yet been born. No doubt each side sees the other evincing a “worrying lack of respect” in the sense that a marginalized population is dealt a bad hand by the policies she or he rejects, but as far as persuading the other side that he or she should change course, it will hardly do to shrug off rational and civil arguments from the other side and retreat to one’s ideological bubble (though of course we do not mean to attribute this further step to Reader herself).

AB - In 2008, the late Soran Reader wrote, There can be no real question about whether abortion can be justified. To “debate” such a question is to harm women, just as to “debate” Apartheid would be to harm black South Africans. The fact that something so necessary for women is treated as a “debate” shows a worrying lack of respect. 1 As this passage shows, the abortion issue is particularly difficult and sensitive. The trouble is that it is difficult and sensitive precisely because people care about it very deeply and do so often for different reasons, though at times surprisingly symmetrical ones. For instance, the “pro-choice” writer (we will discuss terminology in a moment) has serious reasons assembled to say what Reader does in the epigraph here. But the “pro-life” writer also has serious reasons assembled to say precisely what Reader does about another marginalized population, namely, the very young and defenseless (as pro-life writers see it) who have not yet been born. No doubt each side sees the other evincing a “worrying lack of respect” in the sense that a marginalized population is dealt a bad hand by the policies she or he rejects, but as far as persuading the other side that he or she should change course, it will hardly do to shrug off rational and civil arguments from the other side and retreat to one’s ideological bubble (though of course we do not mean to attribute this further step to Reader herself).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048662086&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85048662086&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4324/9781315213651

DO - 10.4324/9781315213651

M3 - Foreword/postscript

AN - SCOPUS:85048662086

SN - 9781138205864

SP - 1

EP - 10

BT - Civil Dialogue on Abortion

PB - Taylor and Francis

ER -