Sunday, April 17, 2011
The Hot Topic...
After reading Kant this past week, it is clear to me that we live in a polarized society today where we are forced to choose one extreme or the other. We are either libral or conservative, good or bad, right or wrong. When considering the concept of abortion, are there only two extremes? Is it even possible to choose a "third way" and if it is possible how do you define it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm not sure how much I agree with the premise that we live in a completely polarized society. Perhaps that is what both extremes desire us to think? If they present the illusion that only those two choices are present, then is that not only more people to join their causes?
ReplyDeleteI think that we definitely define things in terms of a polarized society. I asked my dad this question the other night. I was having trouble understanding the "third way". I am not totally convinced that it is a third way, but his answer was something like this:
ReplyDelete(As we have already seen in class) Each extreme is an absolute. At each extreme end, questioning becomes senseless and looking at context is meaningless. So, perhaps the third way is questioning, and looking at context. Perhaps it is not so much absolutists (with God) v. absolutists (with no God) v. third way as it is absolutism v. non-absolutism. The third way is not being an absolutist.
I think Keller's book emphasizes the nature of our society to be polarized and does present a third option in an even more obvious manner than Kant. However, when things are defined in terms of laws it is difficult not to have a polarized society. There always gray ares to issues in life, but in order for society to function in an orderly fashion someone has to make the distinction between black and white. I think it is the distinctions we make that ultimately create a "polarized" society, but without these distinctions society would not be orderly. There are certainly exceptions, especially when things are being dealt with on a smaller scale.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the idea about absolutists, I am not exactly sure how you could have a belief between God and no God, unless you considered believing in various God's as the "third way", which I don't think is what Keller is trying to get at. I feel like God is something that you believe in, or don't.
I agree with Maddy. Our world is set up in a very polarized manner with governmental laws. It is hard not to be polarized about many things. However, to answer your original question about the third way for abortion,I think that questioning priorities and motives for abortion is the beginning of finding an non-absolute position. Looking at individual circumstances and outcomes present a third way of coming to terms with such a black and white subject. Even taking religious context out of abortion and looking at it from an unbbiased point of view would help in discerning a fair compromise.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Annie is saying about the abortion topic. I know this may sound ridiculous to some, but wouldn't a liberal's point of you be considered the start of a third way when talking about this issue? A liberal's platform is that they are pro-choice with abortion, meaning you take into account the situation of the woman and leave it up to them and their doctor to figure out what would be best. Now, I know that there are also many liberals that would say that abortion should absolutely be allowed in understandable circumstances, which could be seen as another extreme angle, adding to the polarization of the issue. Although, if that person didn't take it too far, and stuck to the idea of "pro-choice" - being able to choose what is best after taking all circumstances into consideration and leaving other biases out of it - could that be the third way in the issue of abortion?
ReplyDeleteI think Annie made a great point. What would happen if we tried to take the religious biases out of the argument? I don't think I have ever heard an argument about abortion that didn't bring up religion in some way, and maybe thats the problem. People don't want to be told what to believe; but unfortunately, thats exactly what most Churches tend to do. The most effective way to solve a problem is a civilized dialogue between all of the different view points in which each side's opinions are heard by all. But instead, the debate has turned into a fight and neither side can hear what the other has to say because they are too focused on being right.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Annie and Emily. Abortion is a volatile topic in most all media outlets. I, too, believe the only way to establish a third way would be to account for individual circumstances, rather than it's being always right or always wrong. In a real world situation, though, it would be very hard for the extremists to accept.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone's responses are so interesting so far (not in a bad way) but in a way that I've never thought of. As I was reading the initial posts and its responses, especially the post before mine, I began to wonder where "exceptions" fall into this categories. For example, some believe abortions are acceptable under exceptions and special circumstances. Can exceptions be considered a third way?
ReplyDeleteI believe the third way is questioning. Questioning your thoughts on the matter. I agree with Sahar in that I feel that the third way could be the different circumstances that would allow abortions to be accepted. However, i still question if people will ever be bold enough to publicly follow the "third way"? Is there really one definition for the "third way"?
ReplyDelete