This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Who cares what Tom Clark, of the Center for Naturalism -- which implies not only that he's constitutionally intellectually dishonest, but also that he's also professionally intellectually dishonest -- thinks?For, after all, the very question as asked is intellectually dishonest -- he simultaneously assumes and asserts that there is something "wrong" with making a religious-based anti-abortion argument.Amusingly enough, Nat Hentoff -- who is an atheist -- is a long-time foe of the abortion regime.
Attorney Wesley J Smith has very effectively countered "The Culture of Death's arguments." He does not argue from a religious stand point. I feel natural law is an effective platform from which to opppose the pro-death movements. Natural Law was not originally rooted in any particuliar religious system. HHH
Yes. In particular, I think the ethics of hospitality found in some postmodernist projects give reason against the violence of abortion.
Post a Comment