Too frequently,
the argument against this freedom to choose how and where a woman births is determined by «risks» and often ignores «rights».
In order more fully to illustrate the mischief of denying a hearing to opinions because we, in our own judgment, have condemned them, it will be desirable to fix down the discussion to a concrete case; and I choose, by preference, the cases which are least favorable to me — in which
the argument against freedom of opinion, both on the score of truth and on that of utility, is considered the strongest.
Not exact matches
His theological
argument against religious
freedom, widely held in the Roman universities of the day, rested on the proposition that «error has no rights.»
Would the conference focus on the difference between the Christian conception of
freedom and the secular conception of
freedom, or would it be more of an internal
argument, an enumeration of Catholic
arguments against the classical liberal project?
David Quinn, a Catholic journalist and commentator, and Neil Addison, a specialist barrister in religious
freedom, spoke for approximately 15 minutes each, ably giving
arguments against the legalisation of gay «marriage»; a question time session followed.
In The Logic of Perfection, as part of his
argument against determinism, Hartshorne writes that «plural
freedom can not be ordered (no matter by whom) save approximately and statistically» (LP 189).
In his famous interview, Danielou warned
against such
arguments, saying that «with the pretext of reacting
against formalism» there has arisen a «false conception of
freedom that brings with it the devaluing of the constitutions and rules and exalts spontaneity and improvisation» and an «erroneous conception of the changing of man and of the Church.»
Pro-choice feminists who employ an essentialist
argument against Robertson will have to deal with an inconsistency, however: advocating
freedom to choose to abort is inconsistent with the claim that the mother - fetus bond is more fundamental than choice.
The
freedom of scientific research is often cited as an
argument against robust governance of geoengineering research.
In addition to providing good insight into the current state of the law, he makes the
argument that it would be good for society, including employers, if they could get over their basically reflexive anti-free speech reactions, while acknowledging there is little current legal basis to require them to do so, and conceding that
freedom increases conflict which runs
against [an] employer's «enduring goals of employee compliance, conformity, complacency and efficiency.»