Palin's "Pro-Life" Position
Tags: 
civil rightsbush liberal republican democrat rights pro life ridiculous right to life election personal moral code progressive meddling kids health care washington post pro choice health care system refuse infringement fuck health care this is ridiculous life abortion conservative western democracies washington post blog the washington post pro abortion pro death
civil rightsbushliberalrepublicandemocratrightspro liferidiculousright to lifeelectionpersonal moral codeprogressivemeddling kidshealth carewashington postpro choicehealth care systemrefuseinfringementfuck health carethis is ridiculouslifeabortionconservativewestern democracieswashington post blogthe washington postpro abortionpro deathFrom Freedom and Reason
Palin's Pro-Life Position
by Andrew Austin
Sarah Palin is an outspoken opponent of abortion. She believes the only exception is in cases when the mother's life is in danger. Her position is one of only two relatively-ethically consistent positions on the abortion question, mine being the other (and enjoying the additional status of being the only universally-morally acceptable position).
Her position is that the fetus's life is worth more than the mother's freedom, and that, therefore, there is no right to personal sovereignty; however, the fetus' life is not worth more than the mother's life because, since, if life is held up as the central concern, the mother's life becomes the central concern. Abortion in the cases of incest and rape provide no exception. There is one caveat to this: this position can only be relatively-ethically consistent if its proponents also oppose all other acts of killing except where another person's life is in danger, which rules out the death penalty, as well as most military actions the United States has taken.
My position is that the state cannot force a woman to have a baby, therefore, whatever the reason the woman has for obtaining an abortion, it must be legal, for making it illegal would represent state coercion, thus undermining the right to personal sovereignty, the fundamental right from which so many of our organic rights flow. I believe killing can be justified on broader grounds than just immediate personal endangerment. I believe killing can also be justified on the basis of protection of innocents, escape from captivity, and overthrow of oppressive conditions. I oppose the death penalty because it falls into none of these categories.
While Palin's position is potentially-relatively ethically consistent (what is her view on the death penalty?), it represents in practice a form of tyranny and is therefore absolutely immoral from the perspective of universal human rights.
Palin's Pro-Life Position
by Andrew Austin
Sarah Palin is an outspoken opponent of abortion. She believes the only exception is in cases when the mother's life is in danger. Her position is one of only two relatively-ethically consistent positions on the abortion question, mine being the other (and enjoying the additional status of being the only universally-morally acceptable position).
Her position is that the fetus's life is worth more than the mother's freedom, and that, therefore, there is no right to personal sovereignty; however, the fetus' life is not worth more than the mother's life because, since, if life is held up as the central concern, the mother's life becomes the central concern. Abortion in the cases of incest and rape provide no exception. There is one caveat to this: this position can only be relatively-ethically consistent if its proponents also oppose all other acts of killing except where another person's life is in danger, which rules out the death penalty, as well as most military actions the United States has taken.
My position is that the state cannot force a woman to have a baby, therefore, whatever the reason the woman has for obtaining an abortion, it must be legal, for making it illegal would represent state coercion, thus undermining the right to personal sovereignty, the fundamental right from which so many of our organic rights flow. I believe killing can be justified on broader grounds than just immediate personal endangerment. I believe killing can also be justified on the basis of protection of innocents, escape from captivity, and overthrow of oppressive conditions. I oppose the death penalty because it falls into none of these categories.
While Palin's position is potentially-relatively ethically consistent (what is her view on the death penalty?), it represents in practice a form of tyranny and is therefore absolutely immoral from the perspective of universal human rights.
Quick Links
Latest Comment
Re: Actually, a survey instead.: - lol and sometimes I say irrational things when I am madsadhappyANDg...
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy
