Posts
The great benefit of subscribing, as I do, to a left-wing columnist like my friend Xerxes is that I stay in touch with thinking on the left. And not just the left-wing commentariat. Xerxes’s readership is also solidly on the left, and he prints their letters.
Recently, I have been able to read all their best arguments in favour of unrestricted abortion.
T.W. does not seem to grasp the difference between abortion and miscarriage. He seems to believe that placing legal limits on abortion will require sending women who miscarry to prison. Apparently he does not recognize women as having free will.
B.E.: “[opposition to abortion] is a matter of religion [not political ideology], be it fundamentalist Protestant, traditional Catholic, Muslim, or any other faith that preaches against abortion.”
To the contrary, respect for the life and welfare of others is incumbent on all of us regardless of religion. Kant demonstrated the philosophical necessity. It is inherent too in the doctrine of human rights. Suggesting the issue is limited to certain religions is an alibi for immorality. Are only Catholics obliged not to murder, then? And if you simply reject Catholicism, you have free rein?
V.G.: “Totally shameful, the hypocrisy involved in fighting abortion -- yet when it comes to putting an end to mass shootings all we hear is deafening silence.”
Abortion is legal in Canada, and in most US States. It is even, in Canada, government-funded.
Mass shooting is illegal, and receives the harshest penalty available in law. In most parts of the US, the death penalty. Most mass shooters are shot dead in the act.
Imagine applying the same standard to women seeking abortion. That is, in effect, what V.G. demands, without realizing it.
C.B. refers to the foetus as a “part of [the mother’s] body.” C’s formulation is like saying the driver is part of a car. Or that, if an invited guest enters my home, I have the right to kill them. I own them; they are in my premises.
R.C. writes: “The same people who are anti-abortion, who are all for pre-born infant rights, lose all interest and support for the infant/mother once it is born.”
Good people are eager to care for any child allowed to live. There is a shortage of babies for adoption. Many US states have a law exempting a mother from any legal penalties should she leave her infant at the door of any hospital. He or she will be taken in and cared for, no questions asked. If the mother keeps the child, she is eligible for welfare—creating the problem, some claim, of young women deliberately getting pregnant outside of marriage for the state support.
Unwed mothers demanding more money or else they will kill the child looks like hostage taking and extortion.
R. C. goes on to say, “These same people [who oppose unrestricted abortion] are for the death penalty. And they have no problem with the hypocrisy of their beliefs.”
The largest identifiable group in the world opposed to abortion, the Catholic Church, is also opposed to the death penalty. So of whom does he speak?
But turn R’s accusation around. How many of those who support abortion also oppose the death penalty?
They are actually endorsing executing an innocent person at random while objecting to executing a convicted murderer after due process of law.
R. is a classic hypocrite for not seeing this, and then accusing others or hypocrisy.
And that is apparently the best they’ve got.
What it really all amounts to is that they want sex on demand, but find children inconvenient. So kill them.
No comments:
Post a Comment