I agree with Hitchens and Harris...it is indeed a difficult moral question.Pwns wrote:Hey Chizz:Chizzang wrote:
89hen resorts to name calling and implying that everybody else is bathing in Krytonite
as he pretends to love all the worlds unborn children and not have a religious view on the subject
There aren't enough "eye rolls" to post for my response to that silliness
I think you'll find pretty much universal agreement that:
1. Needless loss of life is a bad thing.
and
2. It's not practical to preserve life at all costs (e.g. set the national speed limit to 30 MPH or putting nets around every bridge to keep people from jumping).
The disagreement is what "needless" is and when the costs of preserving life no longer become reasonable. You and kalm basically say is that in order to be pro-life you have to throw out #2, which is ridiculous. You basically don't have anything to back up the notion that the pro-life pretend to care about children except imputing motives of religious fundamentalism, which is silly because even guys like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris admit abortion is a difficult moral question and not an obvious one.
So are seat belt laws and collateral damage.