| |
<< If the "side effects" are brought up in public debate, the feminist immediately accuse the person of wanting to "do away" with abortion>>
This reaction is the same regardless of the issue. That's why I hate to see situations where it's either/or. As regards abortion, you and I are probably more in agreement than not. I didn't disagree with anything in your post. I used to work with women's clinics to make sure that access was not denied by "sidewalk counselors". However, we always worked with those groups to make sure they were able to set up tables and distribute their material, even talk with people coming to the clinic. The compromise was that they had to follow certain rules (no yelling, no intimidation, "no" means "no", etc.). We even made sure the protestors had access to food, water and restroom facilities. After they lost enough court cases and the police started arresting them every time they showed up, they agreed to talk with us. The compromise was easily reached, since we all really had more in common than we thought at first. It doesn't have to be win/lose.
I feel the same way about the current crisis with Clinton. Why are the only alternatives kicking him out of office or business as usual? Isn't there room to discuss other alternatives? Why is it always them vs us, since both sides lose when that happens. Neither side can afford to give even an inch, because they know that if they do, the other side will smell the blood and push even harder. It's all about power, not about right or wrong, or what's best for the country. |
|
