Joe, I appreciate and generally agree with your (apparently) libertarian views, but I don't understand your recent attacks on greg as they are not up to your usual standards. He has clearly expressed a view, held by many, that life begins at conception and, therefore, rights do too, and furthermore that society has a duty to protect the rights of the unborn as they are not in a position to defend them themselves - just as young children are unable to defend theirs.
Now, I don't 100% agree with him as I don't hold the same degree of certainty about life and rights beginning at some particular moment. I also think that society's duty to protect anyone's rights requires that it consider the rights of all parties affected - in this case both the unborn's and the mother-to-be's rights. I'm not willing to just assume away the rights of one simply because they may be in conflict with those of the other. That's what those on both extreme's of this issue seem to (or sometimes clearly) insist upon.
In any case, the point of this post to you is that, as far as I've seen, greg has merely expressed, explained and defended his views. He has, again as far as I have seen, been civil about it in the face of rather uncivil attacks and has not preached at or talked down to anyone or come across as self-righteous. So I don't see why you are stepping in to ridicule his position or his religious beliefs, or call him names, rather than simply arguing your position, whatever it is.
Now maybe his behavior prior to my reading of this thread, or perhaps elsewhere on SI, has led you to such attacks, but from what I've seen here, you can easily find religious demagogues on SI to attack who are infinitely more self-righteous, not to mention intolerant, uncivil and downright hateful. So what gives?
Respectfully,
Bob |
