Last week, the Marquette community was subjected to a wonderful debate: Two columnists going at it over individual rights and the “right to life” battle. The sides don’t need to be explained here. The liberal columnist says, “The conservative stance is contradictory” and the conservative columnist says, “The liberal stance is just as contradictory.” Every person on campus has heard the lines before, and probably argued a few of them too.

Individual rights mean nothing without legitimate conversation pertaining to what the underlying assumptions and positions are. There exists a deeper process. Instead of, “Who gets what right?” ask “What does my position assume and why?” The other side must ask the same questions. From here, both sides need to discuss the results of their reflection. Only then might a discussion on “Who gets what right?” successfully take place.

Of course, it seems as though both sides will keep up their current debate — shouting and shouting at one another, with no regard for a deeper process. It seems as though both sides are happy with simply yelling until their voices go numb, and sadly, bystanders to such actions are allowing such an occurrence. Apparently, the prospect of “winning” such a debate is more important than understanding the issue, and taking the debate to a point where an outcome can actually occur.

Until both sides discuss what they believe the purpose of the state is, and how their moral compasses will play within ensuing debates, the concept of individual rights ought be suspended. Nobody’s using them correctly anyway. Sadly, it seems both sides have been habituated into their positions, beyond the possibility of salvation.

Zettel is a sophomore political science and philosophy major.