This is an unpopular view among my fellow liberals but think twice before assuming a pro-lifer is anti female sexual freedom. They may be but there is also an intuitive objection to abortion which is on the very liberal care/harm foundation. Note I said 'intuitive', not rational.
It does. If anyone's life depended upon another person letting them take ownership of their body for several months, that person must have the right to say no.
-
-
There's a wide variety of relationships of dependency; is selecting this one as sufficient to grant an absolute veto but not any other non-arbitrary? Your choices aren't unreasonable, but they don't seem logically compelled
-
Not really. Quite black and white. No-one has the right to demand anyone else physically support their existence.
-
Exactly. You've settled on this first principle, it's not compelled from others. Which is fine, but others have equal justification in choosing differing first principles.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.