ABORTION ACTIVISM AND CIVIL DISCOURSE: REPLY TO SHIELDS

摘要

Jon Shields's finding—that certain evangelical pro-life activist groups are more interested in deliberative discussions about abortion than are pro-choice activists—is wrong on methodological, normative, and philosophical grounds. He generalizes about pro-life civility from a small, trained sample group, and ignores possibly important variables that would explain pro-choicers' incivility. Further, politeness is not necessarily a requirement of democratic deliberation—which entails not forcing one's own beliefs on the public, as pro-lifers manifestly are trying to do, despite their calm demeanor. Conversely, some pro-choicers' refusal to engage in debates is not a deliberative failure, as Shields suggests, as deliberation includes such things as campaigning and canvassing. Lastly, Shields, and the pro-lifers he has observed, use the weakest of the pro-choice arguments, instead of focusing on the best academic work in the field.