[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

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...

So I take that as a no you wouldn't support limiting everyone's rights to contraception based on the moral values of a group of the population?

What if the vast majority of the population happened to hold that moral value? Should contraception be outlawed then?

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.

Or in the case of a single celled fertilized egg, even the capability to feel. There's no brain. No nervous system. Nothing but a complicated chemical reaction. At some point along the way those things develop.

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.

So my other questions remain then, define potential. How much potential? With how much outside intervention?