Monday, February 04, 2002

Ran across this broadside from an Irish abortion-rights backer railing against a proposed anti-abortion constitutional amendment-“The proposed legislation is profoundly discriminatory against women and couples who are prevented from making informed choices; against the socially deprived, who cannot afford to travel to a more compassionate jurisdiction; against individual citizens and minorities who may hold contrasting, but in their opinion, valid views” (my italics). Doesn't any controversial bill discriminate against people who hold contrasting views? Didn't the al Qaeda guys have "contrasting, but in their opinion, valid" views on plowing a plane into the WTC? The tax code discriminates against higher-income people who think they should pay less. Political systems come up with a general consensus on what should be done, but never a 100% agreement on everything. Someone will always disagree on a bill. Abortion, among many issues, has highly-charged partisans on both side, but politics often means one side will be ticked off. The alternative to having a majority ticking off a minority, since 100.0000000% unanimity is impossible, is anarchy.

Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?