What Does "Right to Life" Even Mean?
If a fetus has a "right" to life, but a woman has a "right" not to be fined or imprisoned for violating her fetus' "right" to life, what does "pro-life" even mean? That you'll express your disapproval of her choice to have an abortion?
Well, OK. You have a "right" to free speech. Just keep religion out of it. You don't have a "right" to engage in religious speech, and you most certainly don't have to right to practice a religion. Never mind how trans-rational and trans-empirical this whole rights thing really is.
If you believe neither the abortionist nor the woman contracting for his services (such as they are) should face any consequences beyond moral censure, you are operationally "pro-choice." Baby-killers don't care about your vehement opposition to their peculiar choice.
Either way, the right to life is not worth the parchment it's not written on. Same goes for any other right. (Full disclosure: I believe abortion destroys a miniature human being.)
Well, OK. You have a "right" to free speech. Just keep religion out of it. You don't have a "right" to engage in religious speech, and you most certainly don't have to right to practice a religion. Never mind how trans-rational and trans-empirical this whole rights thing really is.
If you believe neither the abortionist nor the woman contracting for his services (such as they are) should face any consequences beyond moral censure, you are operationally "pro-choice." Baby-killers don't care about your vehement opposition to their peculiar choice.
Either way, the right to life is not worth the parchment it's not written on. Same goes for any other right. (Full disclosure: I believe abortion destroys a miniature human being.)
posted by Tony at 9:40 AM
0 comments
~Bionic Mosquito
Bad Religion author Ross Douthat appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher (yeah, I know) in 2016 to discuss the role of religion in modern life. In the course of their discussion, Douthat pointed out that the very idea of "universal human rights" is a metaphysical concept and therefore, in some sense, religious.
Maher dismissed Douthat's observation out of hand. "Rights are pretty much common sense," he mumbled into his neck.
Really? If that's the case, I suggest he invite Cato's Tom Palmer, the Mises Institute's Walter Block, and internet commentator Stefan Molyneux for a panel discussion on his show. Maher has called himself a libertarian, as have Palmer, Block, and Molyneux. All four are unbelievers. All four surely fancy themselves masters of "common" sense. They should come to substantial agreement on that lofty "universal human rights" thing, no?
Consider the burning issues of the day: abortion, immigration, war, free speech and national security, freedom of disassociation. How long would the discussion remain civil? How soon before one of the panelists accuses another of spouting "religion"?
Normally, you couldn't pay me to watch that supercilious twit. This I would pay to watch. Maher might well learn, as the 19th century prelate Henry Edward Manning observed, that "all human conflict is ultimately theological."