Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Perhaps now some of the leftists and liberals on campus know now how many pro-lifers feel about Roe v. Wade. The shoe is on the other foot. A nigh-invinceable authority has made a decision that scandalizes them and deprived of them of any means of remedy.
"the shoe is on the other foot [we'll support torture to show all those liberals!]!" the victimization gets old, guys.
Funny that Eightgun mentions pro-lifers...because my mind immediately jumped to the protestors, er, sorry, "sidewalk counsellors" that picket my clinics.
Sad I didn't have any classes on Tuesday! I like drama.
Bree and Anonymous, you missed my point. Go back and re-read. I said nothing in support of torture.
My point is that very often liberals and leftists do not like having done to them what they seem to have no conscience about doing to others. I have encountered very few non-conservatives who have the slightest scruples about what many pro-lifers experience as intolerable tyranny: that they have little or no practical remedy to Roe v. Wade.
Your side complains loudly and repeatedly--long after everyone else has lost interest in hearing what it has to say--whenever it feels in any way disenfranchised, yet your side has demonstrated little to no conscience about disenfranchising its opponents.
To support doing to others what you will not tolerate being done to you is hypocrisy.
When a minority needs protecting, the courts need to step in. The reason Roe (to those who believe it isn't a baby at time of abortion)/Gay rights/Interracial Marriage laws/(more?? how far back should I go??) aren't up to the states/people is because one party will always use fear for political gain. (the dems were guilty of this too). When rights get trampled on, the power to trample on them needs to be taken away (14th Amendment).
Disenfranchising to protect minorities is necessary.
Eightgun, I didn't miss your point, I made a separate point that happened to be vaguely related to what you wrote (it shared a word - "pro-lifers").
Your maxim of "liberals and leftists do not like having done to them..." is really kind of silly...replace "liberals and leftists" with "people" and I'd say you're more on the mark.
And I can think of ten different things off the top of my head that pro-lifers can do practically to "remedy" Roe in a very real way - I do them on a regular basis.
Assuming that is your true view of the view, it can also be applied to Professor Delahunty. He has a right and a duty to offer his sincere, reasoned legal opinion to the President regardless of what the President might choose to do with it.
Delahunty's opinion may be a minority view within international law circles. If so that makes him a kind of minority in need of protection.
However, your statement that "disenfranchising to protect minorities is necessary" makes my skin crawl. Those of you who are pro-Roe zealots ought to show some respect for the fact that your "version" of rights is not universally accepted.
If you expect to be respected when you complain about "torture," you need to respect others when they complain about "murder." The argument you outlined here could be used by pro-lifers as a justification for banning abortion altogether.
Bree,Post a Comment
While it's true that all violate the golden rule, in my experience liberals and leftists are the ones who most strongly protest their own moral purity. That's one of the reasons I don't count myself among their ranks.
Perhaps your mileage varies.
There is only one remedy to those whose complaint against Roe is that it robs them of contributing to their country's abortion policy: reversing it.