Principle 10 is probably the defining philosophical conflict between the two sides in the debate. Yet, virtually no effort is made to move past these objections or effectively answer them on the pro life side. One would think it to be common sense that meeting such objections with justifications or avoiding them entirely by deflecting are wholly inadequate strategies more likely to teach your opponent not to trust you then to get them to switch sides.
A greater respect for and understanding of principle 10 would greatly improve both dialogue and pro life outreach.
Hide Replies 1
Don't disagree with anything you say. Just think it allow 100% applies to the pro-choice side too. When I get a pro-choicer telling me, "well yes you are killing a human being, but it's okay because the mother wants it!" that seems like a prime example of justifying what seems to be a broken moral compass and "It's not alive, it's not human, etc so it's not even a question of killing" seems like a complete deflection to the same.
Which begs the question for both sides, what does meeting such objections look like in a way that isn't justifying it or deflecting it look like?