Just a random comment from Reason.com I spotted weeks ago:
"Setting that aside, the critical question should b : who decides who gets to be born? Parents or politicians?
Fatuous bullshit. The question is -- the question has always been -- when is an individual human being a person? The conclusions of the pro-life and pro-choice movement -- and many other debates of that nature -- have validity contingent on the answer to this question.
Historically, classical liberals and their predecessors have tended to favor a "broad view" of humanity with non-arbitrary rights -- that is to say, the view favored tended to be that anything identifiable as human and alive had rights which had to be respected. Others have favored "narrow" views of humanity, choosing to create either taxonomies and gradations of personhood contingent on race, ethnicity, gender, social status, religion, intelligence, physical deformities, etc -- or choosing to label some in those groups as not being persons at all. The pro-choice side is arguing for a narrower view of personhood than their opponents -- whatever the merits of that argument, this is not an unfair or uncharitable interpretation of their position.
This narrow construction of humanity is going to piss some people off, for all of the right reasons. If pro-choicers want to keep pretending that pro-lifers are all a bunch of misogynists, religious nuts, or statists then they have missed the point entirely and should re-assess the integrity of their POV."
Hm. How I saw (bold part) things. Thus confirming I really am a classical liberal at heart. I guess pro-choicers hate me.
"Setting that aside, the critical question should b : who decides who gets to be born? Parents or politicians?
Fatuous bullshit. The question is -- the question has always been -- when is an individual human being a person? The conclusions of the pro-life and pro-choice movement -- and many other debates of that nature -- have validity contingent on the answer to this question.
Historically, classical liberals and their predecessors have tended to favor a "broad view" of humanity with non-arbitrary rights -- that is to say, the view favored tended to be that anything identifiable as human and alive had rights which had to be respected. Others have favored "narrow" views of humanity, choosing to create either taxonomies and gradations of personhood contingent on race, ethnicity, gender, social status, religion, intelligence, physical deformities, etc -- or choosing to label some in those groups as not being persons at all. The pro-choice side is arguing for a narrower view of personhood than their opponents -- whatever the merits of that argument, this is not an unfair or uncharitable interpretation of their position.
This narrow construction of humanity is going to piss some people off, for all of the right reasons. If pro-choicers want to keep pretending that pro-lifers are all a bunch of misogynists, religious nuts, or statists then they have missed the point entirely and should re-assess the integrity of their POV."
Hm. How I saw (bold part) things. Thus confirming I really am a classical liberal at heart. I guess pro-choicers hate me.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.