Intemperate Language
I think the abortion issue can be discussed reasonably by both sides without the use of intemperate language. Political activist and social critic, Naomi Wolf (The Dominion Post 4.12.12) has just come out swinging, saying that the pro-life position shows the “fanatic” behaviour of a “theocracy” that is “atavistic” and does not uphold “the scientific and rationalist ethos of enlightenment”.
I can't figure out why Wolf thinks a theocracy, has anything to do with the subject unless she is blaming priests.
I believe rationalism (reason, rather than religion) can be used as a guiding principle in support of both sides of the issue . I’m not convinced that Wolf is using pure reason in arguing that abortions are critical to the “universal right of women to reproductive health and freedom”.
The ethos of protecting life is timeless and as moral today as it ever was and is not atavistic.
Now, the real dilemma comes when the choice is between the life of the mother and the unborn child. Which has the right to live? Making that choice is a position I would never want to be in.
In the case of Savita Halappanavar, alledgedly denied an abortion in Ireland, the unborn child and mother did not survive. Wolf argues there was a clear-cut case to save the mother. If the second-hand facts she portrays are true, then I would concur with that aspect of her argument, tragic though the loss of a child would be.
According to The Guardian, the European Court of Human Rights has taken the mother’s side when her life is threatened by a pregnancy, - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/...
The second-hands facts Wolf used are however being put in doubt by more recent postings on the Internet.
I can't figure out why Wolf thinks a theocracy, has anything to do with the subject unless she is blaming priests.
I believe rationalism (reason, rather than religion) can be used as a guiding principle in support of both sides of the issue . I’m not convinced that Wolf is using pure reason in arguing that abortions are critical to the “universal right of women to reproductive health and freedom”.
The ethos of protecting life is timeless and as moral today as it ever was and is not atavistic.
Now, the real dilemma comes when the choice is between the life of the mother and the unborn child. Which has the right to live? Making that choice is a position I would never want to be in.
In the case of Savita Halappanavar, alledgedly denied an abortion in Ireland, the unborn child and mother did not survive. Wolf argues there was a clear-cut case to save the mother. If the second-hand facts she portrays are true, then I would concur with that aspect of her argument, tragic though the loss of a child would be.
According to The Guardian, the European Court of Human Rights has taken the mother’s side when her life is threatened by a pregnancy, - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/...
The second-hands facts Wolf used are however being put in doubt by more recent postings on the Internet.
No comments have been added yet.
