I guess I don't know what the big deal is.
Oh, the folks are all in a tizzy about South Dakota's passage of a bill outlawing abortion. It seems like the most common adjective describing the law is "extreme."
What is more extreme? The people of a state, acting through their elected representatives, deciding that there is certain conduct in their state that they believe is immoral, unethical and should be outlawed? Or a small group of lawyers and judges deciding that an action should be legal, even though it is considered to be immoral and unethical by, at worst, a large minority of the population of the entire country, and maybe even by a majority?
I'd say the latter. In fact, I think that is exactly why the pro-choice contingent does not want the issue put up for a vote of the people, I think they fear/know that a majority of peope disagree with them. How is a belief held by a majority of the people (or even a large minority) to be considered "extreme?" It sounds like "extreme" means anyone who doesn't agree with them.
By the way, I am not a "Right to Lifer" as that term would be typically defined.
2 comments:
Do you really mean to equate the pro-life movement with racists? You don't see a distinction there?
"Facts based on any appeal to majority opinion are very nature, extreme." What? So, the minority opinion is, what? Mainstream?
Murder is bad. Stealing is bad. One should avoid high fat diets. All of those are extreme views, huh?
If you are correct that a "slight majority" does not agree with the legislature, then they will no doubt vote them out. And the new legislature will repeal the ban on abortions.
In other words, that state will follow the democratic process. The people will govern themselves, not a small group of unelected, black-robed legislators. (But wait, doesn't SD have a Supreme Court? Are they activist?)
Whenever racism and abortion are mentioned together, I can't help but think of Margaret Sanger, and her goals in founding Planned Parenthood.
Post a Comment