Oh dear. Once more we have the hot-button abortion issue raised as a pike on which to hoist the head of "liberals" everywhere. So, Johannes, do you consider RU-486 to be "infanticide"? Or pinching off their little heads, as brees so eloquently put it? How about the IUD? It works post-conception, you know. There's a variety of "morning after" treatments which college health services know about, but which remain pretty much unknown elsewhere for fear of getting in view of the RR.
I've posted my thoughts. If you want to reduce abortions, reduce unwanted pregnancies. Education is the key there, it seems to work pretty well in Western Europe. Somehow, it doesn't seem to be the kind of thing that sits well with the "decline of the West" moral crusaders who post here. It wouldn't mean an absolute end to abortions, granted, but an absolute ban is not politically in the cards either, by all indications. Or maybe the "Christian Nation" crowd will convince everybody with their compelling logic, I couldn't say.
It is no fringe element of liberalism that champions the raising of homosexuality to equality with the grand human archetype that is heterosexuality.
The grand human archetype that is heterosexuality? You might want to read Plato's Symposium sometime. An interesting tidbit from a recent book review:
Neither the terms nor the concepts ''homosexual'' and ''heterosexual'' even existed until the late 19th century, when a newly powerful medical profession began defining homoerotic behavior as ''perversion'' or mental illness. Still, the conceptual distinction between homosexual and heterosexual had considerably more force in the minds of clinicians than in the sexual practices of men, even the men who worked for vice squads. (from search.nytimes.com
An interesting review of an interesting sounding book there, though I doubt it would sway many of the "morally correct" here. That's life. |
