Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
But I doubt you would agree that you should restrict every freedom to save even more lives. So there's a balance there somewhere between freedom to choose and limiting freedoms for the good of society. That's what the discussion is about.
Where did I lump you in with those groups? I didn't say you held the same values as they did....
I asked if you would support restricting everyone's freedoms based on their moral values. You didn't answer.
|
Ah, I misunderstood.
I suppose you have to examine their moral values and make a restriction based on that examination. Especially on the grounds between speech and action. In the abortion debate, there is clearly good points raised by other side. Pro-life is correct in saying that a choice is a choice and a woman will choose to have an abortion no matter what. I think that is fair and it is the reason why I would support limited public funding to various types of abortion, ie. rape, incest, complications for the mother etc...
I support abortion restrictions in the general sense. The humanity of the fetus is up for debate. Sure. The fetus doesn't have a voice, can't tell us what it feels, so we can assume that it should not be granted the same status as a conscious human being. But we do grant rights to members of our society that do not retain a sense of "full" consciousness, such as the handicapped. We do so on the basis that they appear to us as human beings and we will take the precautionary measure of offering them full rights and treatment as human beings. In my mind, the same set of rights should be applied to an unborn fetus. We know it has the potential to be human, therefore we should grant it precautionary status as a full human being, subject to a code of universal human rights that respects the individual.