Joe:
>What is really scary about this line of thought is
>that it is the same justification for violence invoked
>in that article you wouldn't read. It goes like this:
>We can't convince people to stop doing this thing
>we don't like. If you won't permit us to stop people
>from doing it by blocking them, then we'll have to
>kill them.
Well, Joe...look...I agree with your politics here. Frankly, I think people aren't really self-aware 'till age 3 or so...not that I'm condonong infanticide, but I wouldn't oppose it. I think people have the right to freedom within their own bodies.
On the other hand, I understand the opposing view and I accept it as reasonable. I'm not going to argue it here with you...I'll simply say that anti-abortion people have a point...enough of one that the issue is debatable in my own mind.
If they believe their way with conviction? Well, then they must act with the courage of those convictions. I would hope that their human decency and value for human life would repress their violence. But if it does not, I have respect for that...even as I would put them to death for a crime against society. If they choose to act in recognition of the probable consequences, then they embody a principle I hold dear: freedom.
It's a chess game...pawn for rook. And the opposition is winning. The anti-abortionists loose a few wackos to the needle or the prisons...the pro choice advocates? Doctors driven from practice for fear, younger doctors refusing to learn proceedures...who is winning?
The side with faith? The side which is evangelizing more effectively?
Predictable, memetically speaking.
The first lesson, Joe, is that there is no Truth and there is no Good. No one has special access to those words. We negotiate. That is why we have what is called a democracy.
God Bless America.
Reed
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------