Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
This, as I mentioned above, fails to appreciate the distinction between a right to do something and a failure to prohibit it. I don't know what consequences you're specifically referring to, but this statement necessarily implies that if there was a way to get around those consequences (some future development in society or technology or medical advancement), you would want the state to take advantage of that development and prohibit abortion at that time. It is an objection to the means by which the state is trying to prohibit the thing you think is wrong, not an objection to the prohibition in principle. That is incompatible with the statement that someone should have a legal right to abortion that the state should not be permitted to violate.
|
Right now I believe in Canada we have a failure to prohibit abortion, not a legal right to it, is that correct?
Imo, that makes sense. There are all sorts of moral wrongs that the state shouldn't intervene to correct, many of which I don't think are inalienable rights. As with my example of tobacco, I think the sale of tobacco is morally wrong. It's addictive and dangerous, and the people who sell it know that. I dont think smoking is an inalienable right, but on balance I don't think the good you'd do by prohibiting it outweighs the negative consequences (organized crime taking over the trade).
From a "greatest good" perspective, I think the back alley abortions you'd get by prohibiting would offset the lives saved.