tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8699455.post110637366286514961..comments2023-08-16T03:09:28.568-07:00Comments on Eagle and Elephant: Language and Liberty: Civil Rights and AbortionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8699455.post-1106937780359892412005-01-28T10:43:00.000-08:002005-01-28T10:43:00.000-08:00I appreciated your comments.
To answer your ques...I appreciated your comments. <br /><br />To answer your question, yes. It just depends what is meant. <br /><br />You wrote, "...however, I think that sometimes if we are pragmatic about issues such as abortion, then possibly there might be less of them."<br /><br />We should retain our goal but accept anything that might lessen the occurrence of abortions. An example would be to accept and for pro-life legislators to vote for bills that would limit abortions, though not outlawing them altogether. This caused some furor a few years back when the Pope said that a politician could support legislation that would limit some abortions (and thus keep others legal). However, what is key here is that the struggle and drive to outlaw all abortions stay strong. So, find agreements with people in a "pragmatic" way but never lose sight of the goal: the end to the direct and intentional killing of innocent babies. <br /><br />Ironically enough, this is the method employed by homosexual activists. Over the years, they learned that if they asked for all they want at once, they would have been denied. So, they sought smaller goals as supposed compromises. But, what they did not admit to, what some feared, was that their long-term and final goal was still alive. They carried on and have become quite effective with eventually getting what they want. They have hit an obstacle as of late, but they will not give up and enough of our society does not seem to get the seriousness of what would result.W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02529750105930400773noreply@blogger.com