seemingly fruitless
Looks fruitfull to me: F.R. Poll:Should Roe vs Wade be overturned?
Yes.
2,634 votes - 81%
No.
461 votes - 14%
Undecided.
124 votes - 3%
A Word About Honesty
One last introductory thought. Before we go further, we must ask ourselves a critical question: Are we interested in what is true and right, or are we merely interested in what is not disturbing or inconvenient?
Here is the reason I ask. I have made an observation based on hundreds of conversations with people on tough moral issues. Few are really interested in doing what is right. This may seem like a strong statement, but in the course of conversation it becomes obvious. Sure, they give reasons for their views, convincing even themselves that they have a genuine interest in morality. Their true colors show, however, when their reasons turn out to be bad ones. They fish around for other justifications. They begin twisting the facts to fit their views. They reject or ignore contrary points instead of refuting them.
As their options diminish, their search becomes more frantic. It soon becomes clear they never had any intention of being ethical at all. Their justifications were only rationalizations all along. Instead of changing their opinions and, ultimately, their conduct, they become angry. Stripped of the appearance of being moral, they leave mad, still bent on doing what they intended to do in the first place.
Why do people do that? Because the moral demands of the truth are often an unpleasant burden to bear. When self-interest is at stake, we change the rules. We resort to contorted, disfigured arguments. We attack individuals rather than ideas. We take refuge behind the claim that the question is complicated when it is not difficult at all. In the end we fire our final salvo, "It is my right!" The last refuge of the libertine.
We who are interested in what is true, however, let our judgments rest on the evidence. When the facts go against what we want, we make the difficult choice for the right reasons. We remain loyal to what is true and good, not to what's convenient.
This is true for me as a pro-lifer. I and virtually every other pro-lifer will abandon the fight if the unborn is not a human person worthy of protection just like every other human being.
Generally speaking, we're not interested in snooping around bedrooms, arbitrarily restricting freedoms or passing laws because of deep-seated bigotry or a devious desire to control private choices. We are concerned because abortion may possibly take the life of an innocent human person simply because the child in the way and can not defend itself.
But how do we know? By answering the only important question in the abortion controversy: What is the unborn? What-or who-is in the womb? Virtually every other question dissipates once you resolve this critical issue. Once answered, we will know what is right. Whether we will do what's right is another issue. * Greg Koukl is the radio talk show host for the program "Stand To Reason". Arguments For The Humanness Of A Fetus Michigan Theological Seminary, Journal Of Christian Apologetics, JCA 1:1 (Summer 1997) 94
Here is one of the (to my mind) greatest philosophers produced by England in the last century, telling people-especially other philosophers-that sometimes it is better to walk away than to argue. Why? Because a person's conscience can become so corrupt, and lead to such equally corrupt rationalizations, that to engage them in serious argument about those rationalizations is both pointless-being unlikely to have the slightest impact on their thinking-and, what is worse, dangerous-bringing the thinker of good will into serious danger of having his own conscience perverted by the sophistries of the other.