I believe personally a liberal can be pro-life. Some feel that pro-life liberals are going to threaten the pro-choice semi-consensus of liberals across the US eventually, but I don't think so. In fact, I think that it may be pro-life liberals who will combine with pro-choice liberals and provide a solid majority to stop the attack on women's rights.
To see how different the perspective is, just consider this:
From the liberal TaraElla Post:
"Not all liberals have to be pro-choice in their own conscience. But liberals cannot support outlawing abortion, no matter pro-life and pro-choice. This we can agree on, and this will hopefully form the liberal consensus on abortion. Here's why.
Liberals believe in limited government when it comes to social issues. We are committed to limited government here because unlike in economic issues, for the maximum amount of freedom in society (so that everyone can determine their own morality and life rules), government just needs to step out most of the time when it is not invited. This limited government means that government only deals with issues affecting more than one legal person, in which conflict may arise between them in some way. For example, governments ought to prohibit killing and stealing, because it violates the right of another legal being.
On the other hand, many people believe the slaughtering of pigs and cows to be immoral. Yet there is no law against this, as pigs and cows are not legal persons. Sure vegans around the world can unite and pressure the government to make a law banning all animal slaughtering, but that's not liberal, isn't it?
The same goes for abortion, I believe. The fetus may be life, but it is not a human being that exists physically independently of another and can be proven to have an independent human conscience - at least not yet. Therefore it cannot be a legal citizen under law. That's why you cannot get a passport for a fetus, just as you cannot get a passport for your dog. As for the 'it will potentially become a human being' argument, well, you can't extend citizenship to sperm and eggs too, can you? The law is not about 'potential human beings' but actual human beings."
Source:
http://taraellapost.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-abortion-would-never-be-outlawed.htmlContrast this with a piece from the New South Conservative, also from this year:
"Of course, a pro-life liberal is “personally against” abortion, but doesn’t believe in limiting the “rights” of women to chose for themselves. Senator Pryor will express his personal angst over abortion, but will decline to say Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
Which begs the question, “Why is one ‘pro-life’ in the first place?” Why indeed would one be pro-life unless one believes that a pre-born child is just that – a child? I am pro-life because the moment there is a human embryo, there exists a human being who deserves all the protection the law provides to any individual at any stage of life. If one doesn’t believe human life begins at the moment of conception, what other arbitrary point could one possibly define as the beginning of human existence?
The nation was horrified recently when a distraught mother drove her car into the Hudson River, killing two of her three post-birth children. Would the nation have noticed had she killed them one at a time, pre-birth?
The paradox of the pro-life liberal: He believes that a pre-born child is an individual. But he insists that another human has the right to choose to have that individual murdered. Benevolent intent. Malevolent result."
Source:
http://031331b.netsolhost.com/blog1/2011/04/20/the-paradox-of-the-pro-life-liberal/Clearly I can see that one position is threatening whilst another is not.
What do you think?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(26 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
