re: "Overturning Roe Will Disrupt a Lot More Than Abortion. I Can Live With That." (The New York Times, May 10, 2022)
Mr Walther, perhaps sensibly, sidesteps why it would be wonderful to have many more unasked babies born from all those unwanted fetuses. But opponents of abortion do need to give a compelling reason for their position; no reason founded either directly or indirectly on sincere religious faith can justify the state interfering in the personal lives of citizens.
I suspect the true reason he avoided the issue of what could justify such an intrusion by the state into the most private matters of citizens is that Mr Walther knows there is no morally sound reason, merely bad reasons founded on the dubious metaphysics of religious mythology and moral codes that all too blatantly reflect the Levitically hierarchical control structures of the societies that wrote them: of the men who wrote them.
Mr Walther does at least acknowledge that those who would force babies to be born absent any consent on their part do have a moral obligation to guarantee them a decent life, which means their mothers must be given, unconditionally, an income at least equal to the average national wage.
Is this in fact what those forcing babies to be born without their consent are proposing in the wake of the aftermath of the overthrowing of Roe v. Wade?
_______________________________
The above comment was submitted by Felix Qui to The New York Times article.
It is published there at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/10/opinion/roe-overturn-consequences.html#commentsContainer&permid=118256079:118256079
No comments:
Post a Comment
However strongly dissenting or concurring, politely worded comments are welcome.
Please note, however, that, due to Felix Qui's liability for them, comments must comply with Thai law, and are moderated accordingly.