When neutrality is not neutral
In the modern world, things cannot be said as they are.

Author: P. Fernando Pascual, L.C | Source:

In justifying an edition in Wikipedia, in the voice dedicated to induced abortion, a user explained that describing abortion as "biological death of the embryo" would impose a particular interpretation, express a point of view.

For that person, to say that in abortion is caused the biological death of the embryo would not be neutral. In other words, to say things as they are would be to defend a thinkable idea according to subjective positions.

Finding someone who claims that recalls some of Chesterton's reflections, which in his time (early TWENTIETH century) noted how strange it is to accuse someone who says the truth of being manipulative or defending subjective ideas.

The Modern world has allowed the development of a way of thinking according to which things cannot be said as they are. This leads to the extreme of accusing those who say that abortion provokes the "biological death of the embryo" to pretend to impose a particular viewpoint.

The excuse for this type of censorship is even more paradoxical: the user quoted at the beginning sought to defend neutrality. Where is the paradox? In imposing their point of view (it is not correct to describe the induced abortion in their reality) accusing the one who thinks otherwise of not being neutral…

One of the most curious ideological deviations is precisely to accuse others of ideological to silence not only other points of view but the possibility of saying things as they are.

Chesterton sensed that there was going to be a time when we would have to fight to declare that the leaves are green in summer... That time has come, as shown in the commentary of a Wikipedian who considers "point of view" to say that abortion is caused by the biological destruction of a human embryo...

Share on Google+

Inappropriate ads? |

Another one window