On The Main Blog

Creative Minority Reader

Pro-Life Progressivism. A Look Back

Law professor Greg Sisk:

It is a sign of maturity that the Mirror of Justice has reached a point in its history in which we are circling back to earlier discussions from several yearas ago. In reading recent posts about the Pro-Life movement and whether it is too strongly connected to conservative or Republican politics and should instead become more affiliated with liberal or Democratic politics, I was reminded of earlier discussions along these lines. Way back in May of 2005, shortly after attending a Pro-Life Progressive symposium here at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, I posted my thoughts along with those of several others.
Continue reading>>>

Your Ad Here


Mary De Voe said...

The Right to Life is not negotiable. Life is from God. Citizenship is from the state. What the state gives, the state can take away. Thomas Jefferson. God is infinite and so are unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.

John B said...

There is a fallacious assumption underlying the concept of a pro-life progressive. Progressive or socialist programs, by definition, demean and diminish the dignity of the individual by restricting or eliminating the God given liberties on which that dignity is based. Doing this for the supposed greater good does not lessen the impact. That the Church's principle and teaching regarding subsidiarity is violated by socialist programs should be the first clue. Once an individual's liberty and therefore dignity is diminished, it's a short trip down the slippery slope to abortion, euthenasia and such. the term pro-life progressive is oxymoronic.

Sophia's Favorite said...

Liberty follows from human dignity, not the other way around. It is one of the rights that follow from human dignity, but not the only or even the chief one.
The only person who makes health his highest good is an invalid. The only person who makes liberty the highest good is a slave.

Socialism—"by definition"—does not restrict or eliminate liberty, socialism being formally defined as "the means of production in state hands while political liberty is retained". Of course, since socialism denies a component of human dignity, namely private property (known in moral theology as "dominion"), it cannot exist. In order to put all property in state hands, you must restrict liberty, either wholly (getting communism, i.e. state-owned slavery), or partly (getting fascism, i.e. "capital in private hands but heavily regulated, with a recognized political status given to unions"). Fun fact, post-WWI "progressivism" is not socialist, it's fascist.

Popular Posts