Brown, Rehnquist and Contemporary Politics
JMHACLJ at aol.com
JMHACLJ at aol.com
Sun Sep 11 05:53:36 PDT 2005
In a message dated 9/11/2005 8:16:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mgraber at gvpt.umd.edu writes:
Might this be a reasonable
measure of their moral compass (in a way abortion is not, as it remains
the case that persons we think reasonable take different positions).
If one believes that children in utero are humans and alive, then, of
course, this is the lodestar of moral decision-making. And, it goes without
saying, if that is one's view, then it is no more reasonable to support legalized
abortion than it is to support legalized slavery of Africans, legalized
oppression and ghetto-ization on reservations and murder of Native Americans,
legalized Holocausts, etc.
Now in the Rehnquist screed by Dershowitz and in the comments that followed,
at least one participant here noted that the Chief was not being remembered f
or his civil libertarian bent and a downward reaching hand in his decisions
to aid those less fortunate. But if you have reviewed the evidence and
concluded that abortion kills human beings, then you wonder how anyone can
celebrate the civil libertarianism of Brennan or of Marshall. Libertinism, yes.
Civil libertarianism, no.
Now, I realize some will recoil at my suggestion that killing tiny babies is
be morally equivalent to enslaving blacks, oppressing Indians, or genocidal
murder of Jews, gypsies and others. But you should understand your revulsion
for what it really is: a blank and utter failure to understand precisely
what it is that we believe and know, those with whom you hold such deep and
abiding disagreement. Reasonable people "can and do" disagree about many
things, but this often is the result of ignorance or misunderstanding, not of the
evidence that there are no lodestars, no watersheds and no "one right answer."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof