Heh. Reminds me of the Hilzoy / McArdle debate yesterday.
Hilzoy - http://obsidianwings...ould-not-pay.html
McArdle replies - http://meganmcardle....r_on_abortion.php Hilzoy responds - http://obsidianwings...egan-mcardle.html McArdle responds - http://meganmcardle....t_about_abort.php Hilzoy responds - http://obsidianwings...le-some-more.html McArdle concludes - http://meganmcardle....t_on_abortion.php Hilzoy has it right, IMO. McArdle's argument is nonsensical to me. Cheers, Scott. |
|
Deja vu
Most Obsidian Wings posters and commenters don't have much trouble discerning that a sufficiently remote possibility of political access is not political access. Wasn't Hilzoy's original point that the terrorist act was designed to make abortion -- while technically legal -- a practical impossibility? So theoretical access that is not practical is not access. Works for abortion, works for the political system. --
Drew |
Is cannibalism really so wrong? -- Tom Tomorrow
- (Ashton)
- (2)
- June 2, 2009, 08:52:44 PM EDT
Heh. Reminds me of the Hilzoy / McArdle debate yesterday.
- (Another Scott)
- (1)
- June 2, 2009, 09:33:34 PM EDT
Deja vu
- (drook)
- June 2, 2009, 10:12:22 PM EDT
