Somehow ignoring the athletic angle and focusing only on the political and moral aspects of the visit, here are Alan Jacobs and E.J. Dionne. Jacobs' case is perfectly logical, but said logic --that because they believe abortion is tantamount to murder, pro-lifers can be forgiven for dismissing Obama's call for civility-- taken to its extreme is, of course, a bit dangerous. If abortion is literally no different from murder, then it's not just civility that pro-lifers have a moral imperative to discard, but any obstacle that gets in the way of an abortion-free America.
I also don't see the comparison with civil rights. In the Jim Crow South, there was one group of clear oppressors motivated by racism and a desire to maintain their privileged status, and another group of oppressed who simply wanted to enjoy equal status. Because both sides have worthy motives, that obvious dichotomy is absent in abortion. Whatever you think of abortion, you can't argue that the government telling women what surgeries to get is in and of itself a good thing. (The corollary is even more obviously true: think what you will about government intrusion, a pregnancy resulting in an abortion is nothing to celebrate.) You may think that abortion is an evil that far outweighs the evil of the government dictating what procedures you can perform, but all things being equal, you'd rather not have politicians making medical decisions. I suppose your position boils down to which you find more repellant: the legal and intentional termination of a pregnancy, or the government dictating a woman's reproductive rights (and, of course, the consequent back-ally abortions). But even if you disagree with them, pro-choicers are guided by a principal with a greater moral foundation than, "White people are the chosen race, black people are lesser, therefore the former shall rightfully dominate the latter".
No comments:
Post a Comment