Bloomfield wrote: jim stone wrote:
Dale wrote:Yikes. I was just thinking maybe we shouldn't oughta re-print an entire copyrighted work here without permission. That's what I was thinking.
You are the ultimate interpreter of what you meant.
If this is what it all comes down to, it seems an insufficient
ground for the prohibition.
Seems to me that thinking we shouldn't kill foeti is a perfectly sufficient basis for prohibiting abortion. Why wouldn't thinking that we shouldn't re-print entire copyrighted works without permission be sufficient to prohibit re-printing entire copyrighted works?
Good ol Bloomie!
Just to be clear, I don't think that thinking maybe we shouldn't
ought to kill fetuses is sufficient ground for prohibiting abortion.
It's too vague, tentative and impressionistic.
Also I don't think that even thinking we shouldn't kill
fetuses is sufficient basis for prohibiting abortion. At least
I would be uncomfortable proceeding on that ground.
The thought that we shouldn't kill fetuses needs to
defensible, it needs to stand up to critical scrutiny, it
needs to be well-motivated. The pro=lifer owes us
a principled cogent argument. Even then it wouldn't
follow that abortion should be prohibited--not everything
immoral ought to be illegal. Even if fetuses shouldn't
be killed, maybe prohibition would just make things worse.
Similarly I think that those who wish to prohibit speech have
a burden of providing a solid reason--something
non-vague, non-tentative, non-impressionistic, that stands up
to reasonable consideration. If someone in authority
says this or that sort of
speech is something we shouldn't do, we are entitled to ask Why?
And we should get a good answer. Dale did offer some non-vague
answers earlier, but I don't think they really survived