Very, very fuzzy thinking in this article.
He doesn’t know what “life” is? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know the difference between alive and dead.
Good grief. If his only reason for supporting the right to life is that it’s “unfashionable,” then I really wonder about his mental health. I like to go against the trend, too, but not if the trend is right, only if it’s fashionably wrong.
Maybe there’s something inside of him that says, “Jonah, those are little, tiny, helpless human beings that are being killed!” But he just doesn’t quite understand it.
“He doesn’t know what “life” is? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know the difference between alive and dead.
You notice that the pro-choice folks have gotten around that by saying “well, the life isn’t viable.”
Of course, that argument is circular because if you end it in the womb, it will become viable enough for discussion.
“He doesn’t know what “life” is? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know the difference between alive and dead.
You notice that the pro-choice folks have gotten around that by saying “well, the life isn’t viable.”
Of course, that argument is circular because if you end it in the womb, it will never become viable enough for discussion.
Actually I don’t know what life is either, though we all know it’s different from non-life.
And more than an elaborate parlor trick of the carbon atom.
I also stumble over the assumption that religious scholars “know” more than anyone else about such things. If only!!
As it is, only God really knows what He’s doing. This can be a comforting thought.
>> Very, very fuzzy thinking in this article.
Actually - I think it is the most logical approach to abortion politics I’ve seen in a while. I believe life begins at conception ... but I certainly cannot prove it. This is, by and large, a matter of faith.
What is unquestionable, however, is that pro-choicers also cannot prove that life DOESN’T begin at conception. This is the abortion version of the logic of believing in God argument (i.e. “If there is no God, and I believe in God - no harm, no foul. If there IS a God, and you shun Him ... you’re SOL.”).
Similarly - if we are wrong, and life doesn’t begin at conception ... no harm, no foul - we’ve simply allowed the gestation of eventual lives that would’ve otherwise been aborted. However, if pro-choicers are wrong, and life DOES begin at conception ... then you’ve unquestionably allowed the termination of innocent lives, and you’re SOL.
I think this is a distinctly logical approach to a faith-based and emotional issue. When it comes to the beginnings of life, nobody is sure to a scientific certainty when life begins ... thus it is entirely logical to err on the side of caution, and allow such possible lives to continue to their natural conclusions.
H
I think Goldberg is merely hedging his arguments to get down to the lowest common denominator. His basic premise is aimed at pro-choicers or those that can't decide. It makes argumentative sense to align with these people and say "I don't know what life is" then lead them to the conclusion that uncertainty should set someone against abortion.
It's an excellent argument, one without counter. True, it does not come from a love of life, but it does come from the perspective that killing the innocent is evil.