২৯ নভেম্বর, ২০১৪

"[F]or a 'pro-life' argument to make sense it has to make sense..."

"...that it follows from a spiritual instinct, or from religious dogma, however deeply held, is not something that rational people have to pretend to respect. It is easy to cite the source of moral ideas in religious vision. Don’t you know that Dr. King was a Christian minister? Didn’t the ideas of the Abolitionists rise from the Northern churches? It’s perfectly true that many good and noble and necessary ideas have come from churches and chapels—as many others have come from temples, universities, Masonic lodges, and presumably one or two from a Satanic cult. But their relevance and plausibility have nothing at all to do with their source; they have to do with the moral and practical sense they make to those who don’t have any special respect for their origins. Dr. King was a Christian minister whose ideas about equality and social justice were crucially affected by his faith; those ideas were just as crucially affected by Gandhi and, for that matter, as J. Edgar Hoover would have pointed out, by the Communists in King’s entourage. His 'Dream' speech, though deeply rooted in his faith, appealed not to the authority of religion but to the common language, irresistible to all, or almost all, of justice and moral order and practical benefit. Lincoln may have entered politics with a passionate hatred of slavery, but once he was a politician his arguments were distilled from passion into reason and law, and sometimes even into legalism."

Writes Adam Gopnik — in  "Arguing Abortion" — explicating one of the
two major originalities" in Katha Pollit's book "Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights."

২০২টি মন্তব্য:

«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন   ‹পুরাতন   202 এর 201 – থেকে 202
Unknown বলেছেন...

Ann, I see a couple of passes at

"In the case of abortion rights, the government is lacking in power to impose on the individual to rescue the unborn, even though majoritarian politics would like to say this is a human being to be saved from murder, until the point when the unborn is capable of living outside of the woman's body"

but other than

"The only reason the government lacks the power to protect the unborn is because 5 (or 7) justices took that right away in 1973"

I honestly don't understand why such a statement could possibly stand. How is the ability to have a law to protect the unborn child any different than a law to protect a born child?

James the Lawyer বলেছেন...

In other words, Dr. King appealed to natural law, but nobody can call it natural law.

«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন   202 এর 201 – থেকে 202   আরও নতুন» সবচেয়ে নতুন»