We have been writing and publishing pieces on the "ethicists" who have advocating the killing of unwanted infants. Self-proclaimed liberal, David Farrar has waded in to the debate, which is most revealing. Farrar, of course, has repeatedly advocated abortion as a woman's "right".
But Farrar objects to the ethicists' position. We wonder why? He has no grounds whatsoever to sustain an objection. Just prejudice. Just sentimental question-begging. Here is his argument against the "ethicists":
The first flaw in their arguments is that it is not legal to abort a foetus, once it is capable of surviving outside the womb. Abortion is legal because a mother has rights over her womb which trump that of the foetus. Those rights disappear once the foetus can survive outside the womb, and most definitely after they have left the womb.Upon what skyhook does Farrar presume this month to hang the precept that a woman's rights trump the rights of the unborn infant. There are no grounds. It is just prejudice.
The real question for Farrar is, Where do rights come from? Who grants them? Farrar's answer to that question would demonstrate, no doubt, that his litany of human rights a la secular humanism are nothing more than the shifting opinions and prejudices of the day.
No comments:
Post a Comment