Stanley Hauerwas argues that traditional ways of doing ethics and morality fail to help us through our controversies.
The standard account’s attempt to separate our moral notions from their narrative context, by trying to ground or derive their meaning from rationality in itself, has made it difficult to explain why moral controversies are so irresolvable. The standard account, for example, encourages us to assume that the pro- and anti-abortion advocates mean the same thing by the word “abortion.” So it is assumed that the moral disagreement between these two sides must involve a basic moral principle such “all life is sacred,” or be a matter of fact such as whether the fetus is considered a human life. But this kind of analysis fails to see that the issue is not one of principle or fact, but one of perception determined by a history of interpretation.
Pro- and anti-abortion advocates do not communicate on the notion “abortion,” since each group hold a different story about the purpose of the notion. At least so far as “abortion” is concerned, they live in the conceptually different worlds.
I think this pretty well describes why our conversations about sex are so frustrating.