You know, it occurred to me .........regarding a challenge to, inter alia, the requirement in Ohio that a minor obtain parental consent before obtaining an abortion, that these civil liberties groups have a set of perverse and often inconsistent values. Basically, they think that minors should not have to get parental consent to get abortion. Presumably, I guess, minors are fully capable of making that decision alone. But, yet, God forbid a prayer be said at high school commencement or they recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning, or evolution is being taught in school, and they represent the parents who come in and say, "My child is being indoctrinated and he or she is not mature enough to withstand the coercive effect created by the state." So on one hand, minors are mature enough to decide to get an abortion but on the other are too impressionable to withstand a 25 second prayer which mentions "God". What if we had a case with an abortion-seeking minor whose parents were opposed to the Pledge of Allegiance? Think of the conundrum! The other inconsistency, which I know we've discussed, is supporting abortion but opposing capital punishment. That makes no sense to me. An old court reporter pointed out, the only consisent position is opposing abortion and the death penalty, which is what she believed.
I guess the answer is, it doesn't matter what the right is, if it's been established or we can argue for it, then by god we're going to protect it. Essentially, I guess, no standards, which kind of makes the content of the right meaningless.
Ah well, that is my philosophical moment for today.
Check the last paragraph in this article. Too young to consent to sex? But obviously mature enough to decide the fate of her child? Oh, the inconsistency.
No comments:
Post a Comment