"I Don't Believe Jews Are Human Enough to Protect!"

[natewillsheets]

After reading a very painful article entitled "I'll Have Murder With Fries" by "Advice Goddess" Amy Alkon, I noticed what a good argument Ms. Alkon actually has. For lazy people, anyway.

Ms. Alkon simply wants to boil the abortion debate down to "we-all-have-different-opinions-and-that's-OK!". She freely admits to being a moral relativist, but I

Comments

[adrinna]

It's pretty scary to decide who is and isn't a person deserving 'rights' in the manner she describes. What does that mean for people with brain defects who have no moral reasoning abilities? Why are animals less than these people but not less than the clump of cells? Why, then, are animals not the same as infants in that manner? We cannot hold an infant responsible for doing anything with moral consequences. Just like we cannot hold a hyena responsible for killing a gazelle.

[natewillsheets]

Thankfully she can shrug off any objections that you, an anti-choicer, have with "that's your opinion. I have mine!" It's as if people who say this think that they have just intellectually achieved something, not copped out.

[circlifly]

Maybe I'm not reading into this well enough, but where did you get the title of the post?

[natewillsheets]

It was supposed to relay her attitude, but toward something other than fetuses. :P

[5010]

Her point makes sense if you understand her value of human mind, not human life. So it would be consistent to consider an adult without a functioning mind to be unworthy of protection, even if the condition is temporary.

To be consistent, she would have to hold the stance that one who drugs someone enough to knock out their mind and then kills them is at the exact same moral standing as one who drugs someone equally and then revives them.

I think when pro-choice advocates spend time to do a deeper analysis, they find they are unable to have a consistent pillar ro stand on, so they either stay shallow and try not to think of it, or they cling to a false concern over "bodily integrity".

[natewillsheets]

Right. That's why they have to go into the simple "my body, my choice" logic, and try to keep it there. I mean, simplicity is good. I think that we should be standing up for the unborn simply on the fact that they are humans, but we can go more deep than the pro-choicers can.

I guess it goes back to how we believe in sanctity of life, and they believe in quality of life.

Once again, satire ends this debate.

[la_veuve_chibi]

As I wrote to Ed Gein with his parole board, "They're entitled to their beliefs, and you're entitled to yours."

Oh wait, except not.

Crazy anti-choicers. Against sodomizing toddlers? Don't sodomize them!

Re: Once again, satire ends this debate.

[atroposnomore]

Crazy anti-choicers. Against sodomizing toddlers? Don't sodomize them!

Duh!