I think the point I was trying to make was about public discussions across moral lines. Another example: it's certainly possible for a pro-choice person to be uncomfortable with trying to define when personhood begins, and even discuss that with other like minded people, but that kind of thing is not what we fight about.
Public fights are incredibly dumb in the sense that they must simplify the arguments. They must do violence to the real and complex issues that human lives are made of. And thus you have several (7?) states that both elected mostly anti-abortion politicians, and also enshrined some level of access to female health care... because they saw that overly restrictive laws caused real harm to real people.
I strongly think that faith without humility is an abomination, just as loyalty without reason is an abomination, likewise progress without compassion. It's just that it so very difficult to be loyal to one's own side and rational about the other side at the same time when the fighting heats up. As it gets hotter, the extremes get louder, and the middle looks disloyal.
Again to be clear, I don't think the truth or the right way is in the middle. I don't consider myself a centrist. I do think that humans seek satisfaction, and it is hardest to shift a morally satisfying conclusion, especially when there is not a more satisfying conclusion in view.
In other words "So what? People have complex histories, what does that change? They should just stop being wrong. Where are you trying to take me?"
I'm sorry, but you just can't get there from here.
I think the point I was trying to make was about public discussions across moral lines. Another example: it's certainly possible for a pro-choice person to be uncomfortable with trying to define when personhood begins, and even discuss that with other like minded people, but that kind of thing is not what we fight about.
Public fights are incredibly dumb in the sense that they must simplify the arguments. They must do violence to the real and complex issues that human lives are made of. And thus you have several (7?) states that both elected mostly anti-abortion politicians, and also enshrined some level of access to female health care... because they saw that overly restrictive laws caused real harm to real people.
I strongly think that faith without humility is an abomination, just as loyalty without reason is an abomination, likewise progress without compassion. It's just that it so very difficult to be loyal to one's own side and rational about the other side at the same time when the fighting heats up. As it gets hotter, the extremes get louder, and the middle looks disloyal.
Again to be clear, I don't think the truth or the right way is in the middle. I don't consider myself a centrist. I do think that humans seek satisfaction, and it is hardest to shift a morally satisfying conclusion, especially when there is not a more satisfying conclusion in view.
In other words "So what? People have complex histories, what does that change? They should just stop being wrong. Where are you trying to take me?"
I'm sorry, but you just can't get there from here.