Wellll, I have to say that I’m getting less and less out of the discussion a few posts down. Interesting as it may be to some, my intention was not to spark a debate over abortion, since that is pointless. I was more interested in the question of how — or if — a country should honour polarising figures in the face of deep diversity. Only commentor SeanP recognized that was my intention, which is probably my fault. (But props to Sharon, whose comment further entrenched the universal validity of Godwin’s Law).
Anyway, foolish as this is, I’m going to try again. Here’s the question:
Given a) the fact of deep disagreement over conceptions of the good, and b) that reasonable people can reasonable disagree over the moral valence of something abortion, is it legitimate for a liberal society to give public honours to polarizing figures such as Dr. Morgentaler. Another way of putting it: Could we reasonably expects someone to accept something like the following: “Even though you disagree with what this person stands for, you must respect what they did enough to honour them”?
Interesting answers might reference the following: Louis Riel, Malcolm X, John Rawls, Creationism vs. Darwinism.
