Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8038539" data-attributes="member: 22779">I can get behind this 100%.I remember in uni doing a class on legal ethics.&nbsp; Now, I went to a Catholic university, so, obviously abortion was a VERY touchy subject.&nbsp; But, the professor framed the discussion very differently than the standard good/bad, right/wrong thing.&nbsp; ((I'm going to put this next bit in spoiler tags as it's kinda political, but, not terribly))[spoiler]The professor proposed a simple show of hands.&nbsp; Would you allow an abortion in the circumstance.&nbsp; No discussion allowed.&nbsp; Then he put forward three circimstances:&nbsp; 1.&nbsp; An ectopic pregnancy where bringing the baby to term would almost guaranteed kill mother and child - pretty much everyone puts up their hand.&nbsp; 2.&nbsp; A rape case involving incest.&nbsp; Most people put up their hand, but, significantly less.&nbsp; 3.&nbsp; A woman decides that she is going on holiday in Mexico in 6 months and doesn't want to look bad in a bikini.&nbsp; At this point even the die hard pro-choice folks are cringing[/spoiler]He then asked, does the government have the right to ask why someone might want an abortion?&nbsp; He turned discussion away from the, frankly unending, discussion of abortion into a discussion about privacy.I think you are proposing something similar here.&nbsp; Instead of trying to &quot;prove&quot; that people (or even &quot;enough people&quot; ) are offended by something, why not focus on the potential impact that the work has.&nbsp; If the work is presenting something that perpetuates a stereotype, for example, then maybe it's time for a bit of a rewrite.&nbsp; OTOH, if it's something that's just kinda bit icky because of when it was written, then, well, maybe a disclaimer is good enough.Good thought.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8038539, member: 22779"] I can get behind this 100%. I remember in uni doing a class on legal ethics. Now, I went to a Catholic university, so, obviously abortion was a VERY touchy subject. But, the professor framed the discussion very differently than the standard good/bad, right/wrong thing. ((I'm going to put this next bit in spoiler tags as it's kinda political, but, not terribly)) [spoiler]The professor proposed a simple show of hands. Would you allow an abortion in the circumstance. No discussion allowed. Then he put forward three circimstances: 1. An ectopic pregnancy where bringing the baby to term would almost guaranteed kill mother and child - pretty much everyone puts up their hand. 2. A rape case involving incest. Most people put up their hand, but, significantly less. 3. A woman decides that she is going on holiday in Mexico in 6 months and doesn't want to look bad in a bikini. At this point even the die hard pro-choice folks are cringing[/spoiler] He then asked, does the government have the right to ask why someone might want an abortion? He turned discussion away from the, frankly unending, discussion of abortion into a discussion about privacy. I think you are proposing something similar here. Instead of trying to "prove" that people (or even "enough people" ) are offended by something, why not focus on the potential impact that the work has. If the work is presenting something that perpetuates a stereotype, for example, then maybe it's time for a bit of a rewrite. OTOH, if it's something that's just kinda bit icky because of when it was written, then, well, maybe a disclaimer is good enough. Good thought. [/QUOTE]

Verification