Comments

1. Eric Farr says

   Thursday, July 28, 2005 at 8:15 am

   And, on the topic of Scott and LTI, here is a recent comment that Hugh made on the original posting. Since most folks don’t keep up with topics that have fallen off of the front page, I wanted to move it back to the top…

   Scott Klusendorf has a great piece on what he’d like to ask Supreme Court nominee John Roberts on this issue. His questions expose the fact that the abortion debate isn’t (primarily) about murder – it’s about worldview. His questions read like this:

   1) Where do basic human rights come from? Do they come only from government or are they rooted in something that transcends government?

   2) What is man? Is human nature fixed or does raw political power determine who is and is not a member of the human family?

   3) What is law? Is it merely the construct of jurists and lawmakers or is it based on first principles of morals and justice?

   4) What is the role of the judiciary? Should it restrain itself to interpreting law or should it legislate from the bench?

   5) What are the ground rules? Should the judiciary share power equally with the other two branches of government (the legislative and executive) or should its powers transcend them? That is, should the courts be free to co-opt any issue of moral importance from elected officials, thus leaving the people no voice?

   Question for the forum: how does the way one answers these questions – whether you are a jurist or not – affect your answer to Eric’s original question of “what can we do about abortion?”

   Reply

2. Jason Driggers says

   Thursday, July 28, 2005 at 8:46 pm

   I have already weighed in on this post, but I will reiterate that I feel the pursuit of these questions to be ultimately more productive given that abortion and its practice is a product of one’s core beliefs about God.

   Reply

3. Hugh Williams says

   Friday, September 30, 2005 at 12:02 pm

   Thought I’d tickle the old thread with this item I found on the Klusendorf blog…

   Melinda Penner at STR emailed me this great response: “During the Senate hearings, Feinstein asked Roberts if he believed in equal rights for women. A thought just occurred to me. I think women should have equal rights as men – men can’t kill their unborn children and women shouldn’t either.”

   Perfect! This helps pro-lifers create cognitive dissonance in the public’s mind. For example, why is it okay for Laci Peterson to kill her unborn child but not okay for Scott Peterson to do so? Or, why is not okay for a mother to harm her unborn child through alcohol of drug abuse, but fine if she wants to kill it through elective abortion? Abortion advocates never explain these questions fully.

   Reply