For all of our complaints about living in a soundbite culture, it's one of our own creation. Willful ignorance on a variety of social and political issues doesn't seem to exempt some from distilling their own opinions to oxymorons like, "socially liberal, but fiscally conservative" or "pro-government, but anti-lobbyist". William Saletan's excellent article on the murder of pro-choice doctor George Tiller shows that the abortion issue is far more complicated than either side will admit.
2 comments:
excellent article AC. I'll have double spray on that.
http://networkedblogs.com/p5633091
It's an interesting article.
However, I'm not sure all of it makes sense.
You could sanely argue that the physician stand trial for "murders" performed if you define a fetus (at whatever point in development) is a child.
You can definitely make the point that certain groups are talking from both sides of their mouths.
You could sanely argue that anyone who is pro-life and pro-death penalty may have flaws in their logic.
You could sanely argue that those that killed the physician are murderers.
You cannot sanely argue that 'whatever means necessary to defend the life of (insert life form here)' works as a tenet of any civilization. Most pro-lifers know this, too. To suggest, as the author appears to, that this is the logical extension of their position...?
I don't think most pro-lifers are dumb. They're not backing the murder of the physician because I don't think they like murderers (however defined) in general.
The author says:
"If a doctor in Kansas were butchering hundreds of old or disabled people, and legal authorities failed to intervene, I doubt most members of the National Right to Life Committee would stand by waiting for "educational and legislative activities" to stop him. Somebody would use force."
This implies that force is justified here by a private citizen. Not 'the police' or 'the legal system'...'somebody.'
And that's just stupid.
We have laws about private adult citizens killing other private adult citizens. If Roe v. Wade is unjust because of these sensible laws, it should be overturned.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and eye for an eye doesn't work well in a civilized country (theoretically).
I agree with him that nobody likes abortion, and prevention is the best way for us to address the problem. Other than that, he's mentally mushy in parts.
I think he's trying to reach for a point, he's just not arguing it well.
Post a Comment