Question - how to achieve "understanding" with "absolutists"? Re abortion issue and others.

[NRaleighLiberal]

I am not/didn't listen to Obama's speech, but the TPM headline indicates that Obama mentioned that the abortion issue is going to take understanding. And yes, I agree.

But isn't the problem with many of today's issues - the war, racism, terrorism, abortion, gay rights - that Democrats are capable of nuanced thinking, debate, evolution of ideas, and achieving understanding.

But a big fraction of the Republican party are incapable of such nuanced debate. There is what is right in their book and what is wrong. And I don't think that you can reach an understanding with such people - you can never move them off of their particular position.

[anonymous171]

1. You reframe the issue.

Remove their underlying assumptions and their fallacious reasoning is laid bare for all to see.

[Warpy]

13. Exactly, and reframing could consist

of pointing out that the only choice is between safe abortion and butchery by amateurs.

That will reach the reachable. It won't reach the hard core misogynists who want all women punished and killed.

It sure will identify them, though.

[EC]

14. I've made some leaway pointing out

that making abortion illegal will only create another black-market with unenforceable laws. That the only way to enforce would be to track all women of child-bearing age to make sure that if they do become pregnant that they give birth,which would mean womens medical records would not be private - which is what Roe/Wade was decided on, a woman's right to privacy. Making it illegal will not solve a thing if education and contraception views don't change...that "just because it's illegal" only means they can just close their eyes to reality while saying to themselves "oh,no abortions don't happen anymore - they're illegal" the out of sight, out of mind mentality doesn't equate reality..

[donco6]

16. Fallacious reasoning to you is a good Bible verse to them.

They really couldn't give a flying fig about reason. These are people who believe God is going to whisk them away in the "twinkling of an eye" to meet him in the clouds - leaving their unattended vehicles to smash into everyone else. PRAISE JESUS!

[BlooInBloo]

2. Basically, by not ostracizing them. With all the concomitant connotations thereof...

Opinions tend to harden when you don't give a person a way out.

[Stellabella]

3. I think you're right.

At the same time, I used to be a total fundie, right wing nutcase myself. Until I went to college and started thinking about it. It is possible to change some minds. But the debate would have to move forward from the screaming and name-calling on their side.

When you question them about the specifics: i.e. how would you enforce this law you want, many of them fall apart. Would there be mandatory pregnancy tests each month, and any woman who tests positive would live in a 'pregnancy jail' so she couldn't terminate the pregnancy? Do you really want government to be that involved in personal decisions? Would you want the womb to be designated a crime scene? They just don't think beyond what they think is a baby torn apart for a woman's convenience.

[stray cat]

4. An inability to compromise or see nuance is sometimes lacking on both sides

thats why many things do appear to be decided by a very broad middle

[Mme. Defarge]

5. Some things ARE non-negotiable ...

torture for example. The last thing we need is nuanced thinking about it. Taking a human life at any stage of existance, or development -- except when it threatens the life of its mother -- is another.

[NRaleighLiberal]

7. Just to show how complex - agree on torture. don't agree on your abortion view.

So you illustrated my point perfectly.

[depakid]

6. Anyone who thinks they can successfully "compromise" with extremists

especially religious extremists like the anti-choice zealots is a fool.

The way you deal with them is to relegate them back to the fringe, and ensure that they're far away from any power or positions of resonsibity for public policy- which is where they are in most other western nations.

[NRaleighLiberal]

8. Bingo - now THAT'S a response I can believe in.

[depakid]

12. The biggest mistake the Democrats made over the past 30 years was to enable

and legitimize the views of the religious right. These types are unrelenting ideologues- they're grounded in dogma not reason, and view any "compromise" as a sign of weakness. As we've seen hundreds of times, give 'em inch -they'll take a yard. Give 'em a yard, they'll take a mile.

Krugman lays the process out perfectly in "The Great Unravelling" using pof all things, Henry Kissinger's doctoral dissertation about on the age of Metternich and Castlereagh. Reading Kissinger's first three pages "sent chills down my spine," he writes. In them Kissinger "describes the problems confronting a heretofore stable diplomatic system when it is faced with a 'revolutionary power'—a power that does not accept that system's legitimacy."

[H2O Man]

10. It's worth noting

that President Obama did not suggest any attempt to compromise.

[emulatorloo]

9. Ideological Purists can't be reached, but rational reasonable ones can.

The Purists and the single-issue folks are true believers, There is no convincing them or even having a rational conversation with them. They beleive what they believe and they discount everything you tell them.

This is true on all sides of the spectrum. The anti-abortion folks certainly, but also the "Obama is a Socialist" and the "Obama = Bush". Happily in all cases most people are not like that.

[MineralMan]

11. Rabid single-issue people are a tiny minority.

They are not worth worrying about. Thwart their nonsense freely and refuse them the power to upset things. Just say, "Sorry anti-abortionists. Your point of view is not shared by anywhere near a majority of US citizens. Don't have an abortion. We won't force you to have one. Now, we have work to do. Go away and leave us to it."

Or, to put it less politely, "Fuck off, assholes! You lost."

[Stinky The Clown]

15. I don't think there's any way to reason with zealots

I think common ground can be found with sentient anti-choicers.

The people who went to South Bend for the express purpose of stirring shit and protesting (and protesting Obama, not issues) can not be swayed and should simply be marginalized.

[The Straight Story]

17. I think it comes from trying to understand someone else's position and the value judgements

around it.

To the right we are seen as people who talk about how much life is precious - we don't like the death penalty in general, oppose wars, and yet we see abortion as something that does not end a life, whereas they see it as ending an innocent life which has no choice.

They have no issue with bombing targets from on high and collateral damage though - so we call them hypocrites when it comes to the life issue, and then they turn around and say the same thing about us when it comes to abortions.

In the end the whole debate centers around the freedom to choose what to do with your own body, and when does life begin and your body is not just yours for a term but shares space with another.

Their goal is to protect the innocent from death, and our goals are similar on that scale - protect the innocent from harm. But when it comes to abortion we are in a whole new area because it involves the individual (and of course they would say that person had a choice when it came to having sex and knew the risks ahead of time) and something some see as a living human being and others don't.

As far as I am concerned, your body your choice - which carries over to a great many other issues.