Matter Opinion Victor S Navasky

I came throughout a internetlocation the other day that deals with what it describes as ‘religious tolerance’ in the matter of abortion. One of the points it makes is that our fondness for dichotomy means that we simplify the issue of abortion into two camps, pro-abortion and pro-life and by so doing we misunderstand the complexities of the subject. Examples it uses are us vs them, religious versus secular worldviews, theists versus atheists etc. The reality, it goes on to say, is that there are at least four categories of views on abortion with a subsequent host of sub-categories. This got me thinking – is this true? Is it a matter of for or versus or is it more complex? Is this sort of argument merely wishy-washy liberalism or does it have merit?

Well, let’s look at it. For the intents of this discussion we will confine ourselves to the four dissimilar viewpoints identified.

1. The pro-life motion – this view holds that humane life is generated at the point of contraception. There are a great deal of conflicts in this group with regard to issues such as risk to the mother’s life, rape, incest etc and there is no doubt that this gives rise to a lot of disagreement within this group. We may note that most religious views may be found here.
2. The anti-abortion motion – these are persons who hold pro-life views but who are prepared to adopt extreme tactics (violence, threats etc) to see their view imposed.
3. The pro-choice motion – this view teaches that the foetus becomes humane at numerous point in it is gestation. Usually this will be identified as the point where sentience is achieved.
4. The pro-abortion motion – the article identifies this view only to say that it does not exist. A strange ‘fourth view’, I have to say.

So what may we say with regards to this analysis? Well, firstly, it is clear that the article itself admits that there are not four points, merely three. Therefore, let’s discount point four wholly – it seems to have been developed plainly to add weight to the argument. Secondly, let’s look at the divergence amongst viewpoints numbers 2 and 3. On closer inspection it becomes clear that there is no divergence in viewpoint merely in strategy, one option preferring to stay within the confines of the legal system, the other to do ‘whatever it takes’. In terms of is ‘is abortion right or wrong?’ there is no difference.

So, in reality, there are, in fact, only two viewpoints that you may take on abortion. It is either right or it is wrong. This is reasonably evident when you think with regards to it as, given that both viewpoints disallow murder, the rudimentary divergence amid the respective viewpoints is disagreement as to the point at which we become human. Ironically, the only complex issues arise within the pro-life camp and concern the question of whether there are circumstances where we may be justified in taking a life. (eg victims of rape, danger to the mother etc). This is made so complex because, in the case of rape, for instance, the foetus itself may likewise be said to be a victim of rape – it is surely completely innocent, and if you believe that you are humane at conception then surely (if you are pro-life)then you are encouraging institutionalised murder. Really, everything flows from this. My own sentiment is that even this is not central to the issue and that if you believe the foetus is another humane being, you may never concede abortion. Does that sound extreme? Possibly, but for me it is the only choice that makes sense.

Having was struggling through this argument, I came to perceive that the intent of the article is not to debate the merits or other than as supposed or expected of abortion but to give hope or courage to consensus. Personally, I agree with tolerance but I do not agree with consensus for consensus sake – such an approach is the road to social and moral chaos. My final conclusions, therefore, are that the article in question is without doubt more liberal wishy-washy than suitable contribution to the debate. It seems to argue that we ought to concede everyone to think what they want to think and not call them names. This sounds great and even-handed but the truth is that societies will have to have some shared values that the majority agree must be enforced. This argument is not in regards to whether we must let everyone think what they want to think and act as they want to act but with regards to the nature of the values we share.

Matter Opinion Victor S Navasky

From Publishers WeeklyAs the mordant maxim byword at the offices of a sure left-wing weekly has it, “If it’s bad for the country, it’s good for The Nation” (the magazine’s circulation has risen 71% since the 2000 election of George Bush). Of course, an substitute theory might emphasize Navasky’s sure-handed stewardship of the country’s “oldest weekly magazine” over the last 25 years. After editing a prominent 1960s satirical magazine (the Monocle) and working at the New York Times Magazine, Navasky, with his combining of bedrock principle and a light touch, was a perfective fit at the Nation. Unmistakably confined to professional doings (family members are hardly mentioned), this essay recounts myriad tempests in teapots (and a good deal of not so trifling), lawsuits, donnybrooks, controversies and lines drawn in the sand. If the New Republic is where liberals address Washington, the Nation is where liberals talk among themselves. Navasky discusses a great deal of of his lively charges and colleagues (Trillin, Ephron, Hitchens, Sontag), and relates his thinking behind a heap of of his most indispensable conclusions as an editor. Too fragmented to alternate for a history of the left over the past few decades, Navasky’s story is ultimately when it comes to the nuts and bolts of editing an intellectual journal, interesting sufficient in it is own right. Agent, Amanda Urban. (May)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From The New Yorker“Journals of opinion are not by themselves going to save the world,” Navasky admits, but, in almost three decades of running The Nation and in four hundred-odd pages here, he remains a tireless evangelist for the idea that the world as we know it—liberal, democratic, and Enlightened—won’t be saved without them and the public discourse they foster. Opinion magazines themselves, however, survive on the strength of their editors, or, as Navasky points out, on the reach of their editors’ Rolodexes, and, as luck would have it for The Nation, Navasky knows almost everyone. The front-room tour of his charmed rise from the Little Red School House to the publisher’s chair includes visits with Bob Guccione, Paul Newman, and Jürgen Habermas. Along the way, Allen Ginsberg sleeps on the floor, formerly blacklisted members of the Hollywood Ten defame each other, and Norman Mailer claims he’s never sold out.
Copyright © 2005 The New Yorker

From BooklistPart essay and portion commentary on the state of opinion journals and American politics, Navasky, publisher of the Nation and a journalism professor, offers a scintillating look at his life and career. He recalls his escapades at Yale Law School, where he started the satirical magazine Monocle, beginning his long and on occasion hilarious attempts at providing lively commentary on national events and staying afloat financially. He recalls his association with rising young writers and commentators, including Calvin Trillin, Nora Ephron, and Ralph Nader, and his experiences as a freelancer, including work for the New York Times. All he learned with regards to the magazine trade, reining literary talent, preserving honorable debate in regards to social issues, and keeping the bills remunerated proved helpful when the probability came to own and operate the Nation, America’s oldest weekly magazine. He offers arousing and attention holding stories of publishing giants and political personalities, including his magazine contestant William F. Buckley. As the trend toward profit-driven consolidation of the media threatens the free flow of opinions, Navasky’s perspective is timely and witty. Vanessa Bush
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

Matter Opinion Victor S Navasky Photo

Matter Opinion Victor S Navasky Photo

Matter Opinion Victor S Navasky Picture

Matter Opinion Victor S Navasky Picture

Most helpful client reviews

8 of 8 people found the following review helpful.
excellent book
By E. M. Uprichard
A riveting tale of the world of opinion magazines. Not for everyone, perhaps, but if you have ever been fascinated in what it takes to publish a magazine, this book portrays it well. But the real marketing point is that it’s beautifully written. He’s funny, clever, bright, and charming. You get a severe look at his life as well as his work and it’s for this reason that the book is excellent.

1 of 1 persons found the following review helpful.
Preserving a National Treasure
By MZ
This longish chronicle of Mr. Navasky’s stewardship of the on a weekly basis periodical The Nation is agreeably diverting and satisfying, if a bit too rich in detail. He is an adroit and witty observer and writer, and maintains just sufficient distance and objectivity as he tells the story of the long-beloved liberal diary of sentiment (it was founded in 1865), and how it is fate fell into his lap. The magazine couldn’t have fallen into more capable hands. A rare commodity, the diary of opinion has a distinguished if rocky history in America, and Navasky capably describes how it survives in a climate permeated by capitalism and the net profit motive.

See all 2 client reviews…